 The next item of business is a statement by Lorna Slater on deposit return scheme. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement and so there should be no interruptions or interventions and I call on minister Lorna Slater around 10 minutes please. I welcome this opportunity to update Parliament on the deposit return scheme following the first minister's statement earlier this week. Scotland's deposit return scheme is an ambitious and transformational upgrade to Scotland's recycling infrastructure. It has already seen hundreds of millions of pounds invested across the country and is creating hundreds of new green jobs in the recycling industry with many more to come. It will reduce litter by a third, increase recycling rates of single use drinks containers to 90% and cut CO2 emissions by 4 million tonnes over 25 years. This is the kind of change we need to see if we are to remain true to our commitment to tackle the climate emergency and to leverage private investment behind a green and circular economy. However, Presiding Officer, as both the first minister and I have said this week, we cannot deliver on this ambition without an exclusion from the UK government on the Internal Market Act. With just four months to go, that exclusion has not been issued, making a delay to the scheme unavoidable. We also have heard the concerns expressed by businesses, particularly small businesses, and want to do more to support them. With that in mind, I will today set out a new timetable for Scotland's DRS, provide an overview of a new package of measures to simplify the scheme and to support businesses to participate. I will finish with next steps on our engagement with the UK Government. Presiding Officer, there has been significant progress by businesses large and small in preparing for the scheme. Around £300 million of investment has been committed in systems, infrastructure and staff time, with many businesses fully prepared to launch the scheme. The scheme administrator, Circularity Scotland, has developed the logistical network that will support the operation of the scheme, and ground has been broken on sites across Scotland, including sorting centres in Aberdeen and Motherwell that are creating up to 200 new green jobs. I am very grateful to all those who have helped to make this happen. However, in recent months progress has stalled. Presiding Officer, the primary cause of this has been the uncertainty that has been created by the continued failure by the UK Government to issue an IMA exclusion. Members, I said that there should be no interventions or interruptions, but please continue. Together with public briefings against the scheme from the Secretary of State for Scotland, the effect has been corrosive, undermining confidence, stalling progress and halting private investment. Some businesses have said that they will simply not join the scheme because of the UK Government's position, and there has been extensive feedback from industry that they are not willing to proceed with investments until they have clarity. This is ambitious, major infrastructure scheme that affects thousands of businesses and everyone in Scotland. Readiness for August was always going to be challenging, particularly given the difficult conditions that industry has faced in recent years. However, the chilling effect as a result of Westminster's position has made it impossible. Scotland's deposit return scheme will now go live on 1 March 2024. This gives the time needed for the UK Government to fulfil its duties, and for businesses it gives a full 10 months from now to get ready for launch. Earlier this week, I met representatives of producers and retailers to outline this new timetable with them. I want to acknowledge their constructive response and the suggestions that they have made to ensure that these 10 months are used to full effect. I look forward to continuing to engage with them to ensure that we make the progress that we need to together. I have also asked the partners of this scheme, CSL, SEPA and Zero Waste Scotland, to work with my officials and with businesses to deal promptly with any remaining issues to allow businesses to prepare. While Scotland's DRS is an industry-led scheme, just as similar schemes are across the world, the Scottish Government has consistently worked in partnership with businesses to facilitate progress and to ensure that a pragmatic approach is taken to implementing the scheme. That is why we are removing the obligation on the vast majority of online retailers to provide take-back services. It is why, earlier this year, CSL brought forward a £22 million package of support to improve cash flow for producers. That is why we have listened carefully to the suggestions of small businesses, in particular, that have made in the last few a weeks with a view to developing a package of measures that are fair, pragmatic and support the overall aims of the scheme. The key elements of that package are as follows. Firstly, all drinks containers under 100 millilitres will be completely excluded from the scheme. This will benefit businesses in the soft drinks, wine and particularly the spirits industry who have raised particular concerns about miniatures, while removing just 0.2 per cent of articles from the scheme. Secondly, products with low sales volumes will be excluded from the scheme. This change applies to any product that sells less than 5,000 items a year. That will apply to all businesses, so a large business that has a niche product line with low sales volumes will not need to apply a deposit to that line. A small business that only sells low volume products will not need to apply a deposit to any of their products. That change will only remove about 0.5 per cent of articles from the scheme, but will remove the need for around 44 per cent of businesses to apply a deposit to their products, effectively removing many of the smallest producers from the scheme. Thirdly, we plan to exempt all hospitality premises who sell the large majority of their drinks products for consumption on the premises from acting as a return point. Regulations already exempt premises that exclusively sell drinks on-site, such as restaurants, pubs and nightclubs. However, many hospitality businesses also sell a small proportion of drinks to take away. Where that is the case, we agree that they need not operate as a return point, given that they will already be operating a closed-loop system for drinks on sale. We will engage with hospitality businesses on the proportion of sales at which that will apply to ensure a balance between support for businesses and accessibility for customers. Also in partnership with Zero Waste Scotland, we have simplified the online process for retailers to apply for an exemption from operating a return point following feedback from businesses that have used the online application system. Finally, I am aware of the concern that some businesses have around the size and complexity of the producer agreement with Circularity Scotland. To help with this, I have asked Circularity Scotland to develop a short-form producer agreement, which will help to reduce the burden on these businesses. Throughout the process of developing DRS, we have worked closely with officials in the UK Government. However, the UK Government still has to issue an internal market act exclusion, even though we first raised the need for one in 2021. We have followed the agreed process and provided all material that has been asked of us, and I had expected to finally get a decision at the most recent inter-ministerial group meeting on Monday of this week. However, no decision was forthcoming and ministers were unable to provide a time frame for one. Let me be clear. Scotland's DRS is within the devolved competence— Minister, sorry, could you resume your seat just for a second, please? I have said at the outset that there should be no interventions or interruptions whilst the minister is speaking. There will be opportunities after the minister has concluded to our statement to ask questions. Minister, please resume. Let me be clear. Scotland's DRS is within the devolved competence of the Scottish Government and Parliament. It is not for Westminster to undermine our democracy in this way. Following this statement, we will write to the UK Government to inform them of the new timetable and support package and to request once again for an urgent decision to allow the scheme to proceed as I have outlined. I am confident that this will happen because there is no reasonable justification for this request to be refused. It is the right outcome for businesses, for Scotland and for the UK, who will benefit from our scheme leading the way and we remain committed to continue to share lessons with the UK Government. Alongside this IMA exclusion, we are also working with the UK Government on issues related to trading standards, which are important for producers and retailers. Businesses need answers on these issues in short order, and again I asked the UK Government to work with us, businesses and regulators, to resolve these critical issues in a timely manner. Let me finish by saying that I and this Government are committed to Scotland's deposit return scheme. This commitment is unwavering because I believe in climate action. I believe in investing in green infrastructure, in creating the green jobs of the future. I call on members across this chamber who share these values to put an end to their increasingly desperate attempts to undermine Scotland's deposit return scheme, because right now it looks like colleagues on the Labour and Tory benches have given up on recycling, on tackling the litter crisis, on the climate emergency and even on the authority of this Parliament to make decisions in devolved areas. That is what this comes down to. Scotland's Parliament legislated to make deposit return happen, and I as a Minister of the Scottish Government am delivering on that democratic mandate. A Tory Westminster Government that Scotland did not vote for appears to be using the post-Brexit powers that it gave themselves to stop this vital scheme in its tracks. Labour and the Tories might have given up on devolution. Sorry to interrupt again, please resume your seat just a wee second. I have said this is the third and last time I'll say this. The minister is making a statement, as is the common practice when ministers make statements, that there are to be no interventions or interruptions. Thank you. Labour and the Tories might have given up on devolution. We have not. I and this Scottish Government will work tirelessly to deliver on our mandate and to protect this Parliament's right to work for the people of Scotland. Thank you minister. The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we will move on to the next item of business, and I would ask those members who would wish to ask a question if they would please press the request to speak buttons now, and I call Maurice Golden. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank the minister for an advanced sight of this statement. The only party in this chamber that has given up on recycling is the SNP and indeed their partners in the Greens. Having not met the 2013 household recycling target, which the Scottish Government set, but this statement confirms the SNP-Green approach, constitutional grievance first and business second. The Scottish Government has been sitting on this scheme since 2009, before it finally got round to introducing regulations and setting a launch date of April 21. Then we had a delay, then another delay, then this week, with the minister having lost control of the scheme, the First Minister had to step in and announce yet another delay. The minister will not be happy with that, having said, and I quote, no-one with any credibility would delay the scheme again, and that it would be a quote kick in the teeth to industry. However, the minister has made such an almighty mess of this scheme that she has now had to effectively re-write it. Today's changes should have been made months ago. Businesses cannot have confidence in the scheme that sees continual delays and massive changes at the last minute. Let's be clear. That is not an industry-led scheme. The Scottish waste sector has been excluded, small businesses have been excluded from membership of the scheme administrator and, in any case, Donald Macallman from Circularities Scotland said today, and I quote, we are not running the scheme. I think that that is an important misconception to address. So, can the minister provide a helpful answer? I am not interested in pre-scripted flimflam telling me information that I already know. Will registered producers be held liable for advance months payments during this delay, yes or no? I am sorry, due to the noise around me, I could not hear the question. Could you repeat the last bit, please? Before you stand up to ask again your question, the question would have been heard if members in the front bench and other parts of the benches I am looking at directly had not heckled you whilst you answered your question. Asking your question is perhaps a salutary lesson for everybody this afternoon if you could just let the person who has the floor be the speaker at that particular moment in time. Douglas Lums, Maurice Golden. I am much younger than Douglas Lums. Will registered producers be held liable for advance months payments during this delay, yes or no? The member asks a very interesting question at the end, which is about the agreement between the producers and Circularities Scotland, which is a contract that they have signed. The member may be reassured that only the very largest producers are liable for the costs under that contract. I also thank the minister for advance notice of her statement, though I have to say that I am deeply disappointed by the tone and content of the statement. I put on record that the response by the First Minister in my letter yesterday was merely a political attack, which, unfortunately, the minister is repeating today. Businesses, the hospitality sector and recycling companies have been stressed and have highlighted their concerns for months, and being told to go to a website by the minister for the last few months has not cut it, especially when the information that they sought wasn't even there. Now that we have this inevitable delay, surely we need a grown-up approach from both the UK and the Scottish Governments to ensure that we get a scheme that will not disadvantage Scottish businesses and consumers. Scottish Labour is absolutely clear that we support the principle of a DRS scheme. It has been successful in other countries, and in the debate today we will highlight our commitment to stronger action on climate emergency. Even now, there is no admission in this statement about what has been wrong with this scheme and its design, and that is why we have been asking questions for months. A key issue that I want some response from the minister on is the implementation of the scheme. He said again that it has been given to the private company Circularity Scotland. It does not represent small businesses with no accountability or parliamentary oversight. It has already given the contract to BIFA now a US hedge fund-owned company that will put jobs and local recycling companies at risk and give them a monopoly over what prices are charged in the future. Will the minister now roll back on that? What will remain a concern to businesses is the exact detail of how the scheme is to be implemented. Will the minister now commit to meet with those producers, members of the hospitality sector and recycling companies who will still face major challenges even with the changes that she has announced today? I continue to meet producers, members of the retail sector and hospitality sector, and I am happy to meet your recyclers in the sector as well. Engagement with industry and business has been a core part of how we have been delivering this. Indeed, after the First Minister's statement on Tuesday, I held rapid meetings with producers, retailers and the NGOs in the sector that very afternoon, which is just a continuing example of the kind of engagement that we have had along. I will go through some of the timeline here because I think that might be useful for the member to understand. Since last year, we have developed considerable momentum towards what was intended to be the launch this year in August. That included working with industry on their concerns towards the scheme. The way that the regulations were passed by this Parliament were deliberately broad to allow industry to make those adjustments and decisions that were right for industry. This scheme is paid for by industry and delivered by industry. I suppose that this Parliament could have passed a scheme that was paid for by the taxpayer and controlled by government, but that is not what this Parliament passed. However, within the scope of delivering the scheme, there are some key partners. One is the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. We passed the regulations. SEPA enforces those regulations, and industry's job is to adhere to the regulations. Circularity Scotland is a private, not-for-profit business that has been created by industry to enable them to comply with the regulations as passed by this Parliament. Throughout the process of delivering this project, industry has come back to me as a representation of the Scottish Government and said, look, there are certain elements of the scheme that we would like to clarify, to get detail on, to improve. We have done so. We clarified the process for streamlining exclusions. We got rid of online take-back for most people who would have been responsible for it. We worked with Circularity Scotland, who in March delivered £22 million worth of cash flow, and today I have also announced significant adjustments to the delivery of the scheme that has been asked for by industry. Industry has asked us to exclude miniatures. We have done so. Industry has asked us to look at what could be done for small producers. 44% of small producers are now not required to have a deposit on the scene. The Member should be clear that I have systematically worked through and delivered on what industry you are asking for. Now we have 10 months from now to the new launch date. I am looking forward to working with industry to get to that launch date successfully. On Tuesday, the businesses that I engage with have been very constructive, and I thank them for their suggestions as to how we might work together to do that, and I will continue to do that. I would point out that we would probably need to think questions and indeed ministers to think answers in order to allow me to take as many members as I possibly can in the time that we have available. I call Fiona Hyslop to be followed by Liam Kerr. I am having difficulty hearing the minister, and I think that time would be best spent with questions and answers that has been taken up by a lot of noise from the Conservatives. Can the minister—this takes up time. If everything takes up time with Hyslop, and I will try to deal with that as best as I can, please continue. Can the minister now suggest that SEPA and Circularity Scotland provide clarity on the basis for the scheme for small hospitality businesses, such as the dreadnought in Basgate that I recently visited, who already recycle 100 per cent of the glass bottles, cans and other waste using existing SEPA systems of recording such recycling? What consideration has been given to those hospitality closed-loop venues like theirs who will have difficulties storing waste and recycling securely, where the same company designated by Circularity Scotland to collect in the future will only do so from the public main street, which brings serious security issues for what will be a valuable commodity? All scheme articles bear a deposit that hospitality businesses will have paid when they purchase those materials. Hospitality businesses can only redeem that deposit by ensuring that scheme articles are returned. Removing them from the scheme is not possible. The scheme will allow closed-loop hospitality businesses to have their material collected for free, saving them money while keeping up the high levels of recycling. I am aware that CSL continues to work with the hospitality industry to ensure a smooth working of the scheme. I call Liam Kerr to be followed by Clare Adamson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The minister was asked whether there might be liabilities arising and confirmed that there will be. So can the minister tell me what is the total liability expressed as a figure for registered producers and retailer contractual commitments for RVMs resulting from this delay? This is a matter of the contractual agreement between Circularity Scotland and the producers. The member can be reassured that only the very largest producers, those making more than 10 million units per year, are required to underwrite the cost. It is an agreement between a private company and their customers. It is not a matter for the Scottish Government. I call Clare Adamson to be followed by Mercedes Villal. Prior to Brexit, which Scotland did not want, we had regulatory divergent and this Parliament could be secure in legislative and devolved areas. The constitution, Europe, external affairs and culture committee has consistently raised concerns about the lack of transparency about the frameworks and the nature of the relationship between the Governments and how they are developing. The two-year delay of the UK Government in its decision on internal markets' access to exclusions under the common frameworks can only leave the impression that the UK Government is trampling over the devolution settlement. Does the minister agree? I share the member's deep frustration. Let me be clear that this should not be how devolution works. I am deeply concerned by the broader implications of the UK Government using its powers under the internal market act in this way to undermine the common frameworks and devolved decisions taken by this Parliament. The Welsh Government is also concerned about this. The common frameworks were meant to provide a means to resolve issues such as these, and my ask to the UK Government is clear. We need to follow the process, the agreed published process, engage constructively and agree an exclusion quickly. This is the best outcome, not just for Scotland and Scottish businesses, but for the UK as a whole. In February this year, the circular economy minister claimed that there were 500 new jobs out for recruitment as part of the deposit return scheme, including 60 in Aberdeen, all of which contribute to our just transition. In March, the minister announced that 664 businesses had registered with the scheme ahead of the August launch. So, can the minister share what assessments the Scottish Government has made into the impact of this significant delay on these new jobs and on the cost to those businesses and organisations who have already invested in changes to their operations as part of the scheme? The member is quite right. Many businesses in Scotland have invested heavily toward the August launch date, including recruiting people, setting up IT systems, getting ready to install reverse vending machines. This delay, which is caused from the prevarication of the UK Government to give us only weeks from the launch of the scheme, something we asked for two years ago, the prevarication of the UK Government to issue this exemption has absolutely been frustrating for me and for those businesses who have made that substantial investment. As I said, the member quoted me accurately, I think that delay by the UK Government is a kick in the teeth to those businesses who have worked so hard toward that, but the businesses may be reassured that that investment is not lost. That investment will be valuable toward working to our March first launch, because the Scottish Government is committed to deposit return and we will be working toward a successful launch in March next year. The minister mentioned trading standards in her statement. I wonder if she could expand a little bit on that as to exactly what agreement she needs from trading standards. Does that include the question of how deposits will be displayed in the price and is the UK Government being constructive in this regard? I thank the member very much for this question. This is a really important question that affects Scottish businesses and, in fact, businesses all across the UK as they implement their deposit return schemes. Trading standards have indicated that their interpretation of the price-marking legislation is that the deposit must be included in the price displayed for a product. We believe that their approach risks confusion for customers. We believe that it is important that it is clear that the deposit on products is refundable and therefore do not believe that it should be included in the price displayed but instead highlighted separately, as the deposit return regulations require. This is the approach of DRS schemes in other countries. Trading standards is a reserved policy, so we cannot adjust the regulations ourselves. However, we have called on the UK Government to amend the relevant legislation that does not explicitly cover deposit return schemes to make it clear that the deposit price can be displayed separately. Scottish Government officials are working closely with DEFRA, the Welsh Government and the Department of Business and Trade, to seek a consistent approach to deposit pricing across the UK, particularly as we believe that the UK will want a similar approach, as we are proposing, when they launch their own scheme. Security Scotland's role is to deliver the scheme, as per Government instruction. SIPA is the regulator of the scheme, but despite hundreds of questions that have been asked by the minister, we are still unclear to her role. Perhaps the minister would take this opportunity to tell us what her responsibilities are, and will she finally commit to working with all MSPs across the chamber who are incidentally supportive of a workable DRS scheme, ditch the positive squirming and listen to affected industries when they raise legitimate concerns? As I have gone through in detail when the member on my right asked the question, I have engaged with businesses that are effectively producers and retailers. I have spoken with MSPs in this chamber. I have done extensive engagement, and that is how we have this series of impact changes that we have made to the DRS, changes to the operational scheme that we have done specifically to address what industry has asked for. I have given extensive detail—I am sure that the Presiding Officer does not want me to go through it again—of exactly all the ways that we have listened to businesses to get ready for this launch. We have 10 months ahead of us to our March 1 date, and I am really looking forward to and have constructive engagement again with retailers and producers on Tuesday as to how we are going to work together to become a really effective delivery body to get this scheme launched successfully on March 1, and I am looking forward to doing just that. I call Christine Grahame to be followed by Liam McArthur. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I know that the minister has met recently with representatives of producers and retailers, which is good, but has she met with RMES Resource Management Association Scotland, which I have? It represents 400 companies, small region enterprise, operating and waste management, with 6,690 employees, because they have conserved before having them monopoly. Those businesses will be put out of work, and those jobs are at risk. I have met with RMES some time ago—not specifically on this matter, though. I share the member's concern about the impact on existing recyclers and waste companies. My officials have been in discussion with CSL about this matter, and we are clear that we must harness the opportunities for existing recyclers within the DRS scheme. As such, CSL has indicated that, as part of Biff's responsibility for building and operating an efficient and effective collections network, they are in active discussions with several existing waste collection companies to explore how those organisations can work with Biffa for DRS. They remain keen to engage with other such companies and have a dedicated forum on their website to allow firms to make contact and open up discussions. I urge recycling and waste companies to do just that and get in contact with Biffa. Thank you. This is a remarkable statement as an exercise in blame shifting that is both ill-advised and lacking in self-awareness. Over the past two years, I have spoken to many businesses, not one of which has mentioned the UK Government, all of whom have criticised the Scottish Government's approach. The minister says that she has set out further changes today. She has insisted that this is a genuinely industry-led scheme. Therefore, can she confirm that she will be open to considering any other changes that, particularly small businesses, believe are still required? Minister. I thank the member for his statement. I have been engaging with businesses large and small, with trade associations, and the number one thing that businesses have raised with me as their concern is uncertainty around the scheme, and particularly the uncertainty created by the lack of the UK Government issuing this exclusion on the internal market. Specifically, businesses are saying to me, why should I invest in this scheme, which the UK Government, Alistair Jack, is saying, he might veto? Why should they put millions of pounds of their money on the line when the UK Government is creating this level of uncertainty? The businesses that I have spoken to have either held or paused their investment or told me they are not willing to participate in the scheme until the UK Government gives them that clarity. That clarity we need first off from the UK Government. However, as I have outlined today, I have been listening clearly to businesses at all stages, and the simplification measures announced today are significant, particularly for small producers, that limit of 5,000 units, which applies to producers of all sizes, but in particular is his benefit for small producers who do not wish to have a deposit on their items. They could have a deposit on their items if they want to. They can still opt in in that way, but that means that 44 per cent, 44 per cent of the smallest producers will not have a deposit on their articles, which is a significant support and exactly the kind of measure that small businesses have been asking for. I call Mark Ruskell to be followed by Fergus Ewing. Across the country, I can see DRS facilities appearing in supermarkets, sorting centres being built and hundreds of jobs being created. With over 95 per cent of the market for cans and bottles already signed up, businesses and the minister should actually be getting congratulated for getting the UK's first DRS scheme this close to being launched. However, given that huge private sector investment that has already been delivered in our communities, can the minister ask what the reaction from those businesses has been to the continued failure of the UK Government to grant an exemption under the Internal Markets Act? For all the moaning and groaning in theatrics to my left here, it is a fact that we need an exclusion issued on the I Internal Market Act for this scheme to be launched. That is an absolute fact. I absolutely share the member's deep frustration. Let me be clear that this should not be how defolusion works. Businesses work best when they have certainty, and that is what they have asked us and the UK Government for. The continuing uncertainty on the UK Government position is undermining progress. We are hearing businesses are pausing for their preparation and investment until a UK Government decision is agreed. I continue to urge the UK Government to agree the exclusion as soon as possible to provide certainty for businesses. However, on a happier note, I am also excited to start seeing reverse vending machines in shops and to see that it is actually happening. People are tweeting when they are seeing them in shops and stuff, and it is really exciting to see that start to happen. The minister has mentioned devolution. Surely the aim of devolution is to do things better, not just to do things differently for the sake of it. Does she not agree, and will she agree to, the main two business asks that are outstanding? One is to remove glass from scope, as it is in the UK, and two, given the further delay, which I predict will be extended, there should be alignment with the UK, thereby removing double costing, double labelling and 700 lost jobs that will happen in the waste management sector, and all the detritus of the dire complexity of a broken, defective scheme. I often forget that Fergus Ewing is not a member of the Conservative party, given the support that he is getting there. That was quite an impressive round of applause for him. Greenpeace says, and I quote, that, in what kind of world is collecting glass drinks containers not an essential part of a system designed to collect drinks containers? Of the 44 schemes around the world that already exist, 40 of them collect glass. It is normal for that glass to be part of this scheme. Indeed, Maurice Golden wrote an extensive web blog post on it, which he has since deleted, but I can quote you from if anyone interested in hearing what Maurice Golden used to say about the benefits of glass before he rethought his position. I am, of course, very disappointed that the UK Government has chosen to exclude glass for the scheme. Does the minister please resume your seat a second point of order? Point of order. I have not deleted any article ever, and I think that it is absolutely outrageous to be accused of that from a minister in this place. I have not changed my position on DRS, and there is no way that I should be slandered in this place by a minister of the Scottish Government. Minister, could I respond to the point of order, please? I thank Maurice Golden for his contribution. That, of course, is not a point of order. It does not engage myself as the Presiding Officer in the chair. The member has made his point, and it is on the record. Minister, please resume. I will be delighted that anyone can presumably go on to the web and find this quote from Maurice's blog post, which says that we have an opportunity to create an ambitious and inclusive UK-wide scheme, including glass, which will tackle litter and improve recycling rates. Obviously, I am disappointed that the UK Government has not chosen to go with the global norm of including glass in the scheme. It will reduce the environmental effectiveness of the scheme. Glass is one of the most common items to pollute our beaches and public spaces. It is also one of the litter items that causes most concern, particularly among parents and pet owners, because of its potential to cause injury. In Scotland, we will continue to include glass in our scheme because it is the right thing to do. As the gap between any Scottish scheme and one in the rest of the UK continues to narrow, will the minister use the next 10 months to seek to ensure that any Scottish scheme aligns as close as possible to other schemes in the UK in areas such as labelling, product size and exemptions? My South Scotland constituents on the border who routinely purchase products on either side of the border in their daily lives should be able to return those products to either side of the border wherever they purchase them. Absolutely. I can reassure the member that we are committed to the interoperability of the scheme, and today's announcement on the 100 milliliter containers will be part of that alignment. Of course, I am very much hoping that the UK will align with us and include glass in their scheme. I thank the minister for her statement, which I know will be welcomed by smaller producers, such as Williams Brothers, based on my constituency, who I met with her this week, particularly if the extended consultation works closely with SMEs. I agree and endorse what the minister has said by the fact that the Tory party does not know whether it wants to support it, oppose it or just play constitutional politics in order to disrupt the process. Could the minister also give reassurances that discussions will take place with supermarkets and other retailers to ensure that smaller producers who are excluded from the scheme are not adversely impacted by retailers only stocking registered scheme articles? I thank the member very much for the question. Of course, it is important to note that even those small producers whose items are excluded from the scheme still need to register with SIPA and give them the information on their quantities so that they can be properly excluded and follow the rules properly. It is a commercial decision for individual businesses whether they wish to participate in the important environmental scheme by selling products on the Scottish market. However, we would encourage any business to contact Circulary Scotland in the first instance for support and to discuss any concerns that it has about participating in the scheme. I apologise for arriving slightly late for the statement. Despite some concessions today, lawness leader is still just kicking the can down the road. Can she explain what compensation she is considering for small hospitality operators who may already have incurred considerable costs? Although claim downs are the order of the day, will she now do the right thing and exclude small pubs and restaurants altogether? As I have already outlined in terms of the exclusions for hospitality businesses, small pubs, night clubs and so on, who only operate as a closed loop, were already excluded from acting as return points. That was already part of that. They have to be part of the scheme as a closed loop matter because when they buy these items they will have a deposit and by participating as a closed loop they get that money back. They are going to need to get that money back. They have to participate as a closed loop but we are accepting them from acting as a return point. Today's announcement means that further hospitality businesses, those who for most of their products are consumed in-house, will not be obliged to act as a return point. That simplifies things a great deal for hospitality businesses. For those closed loop hospitality businesses, they will have those materials collected for free that is a substantial cost saving to those businesses and that is how we are supporting the hospitality industry. Thank you minister. That concludes the statement, which I allowed to run on if I could just finish briefly for a bit longer because there was such an interest on the part of members across the chamber wishing to ask questions and I apologise to the few members that I was not able to fit in because we did allow the statement to run on quite considerably to accommodate as many members as possible. The minister referred to a blog post that I have made. I have never written a blog and therefore I could not have published a blog and then subsequently deleted it and I would appreciate if the minister would correct the official record and apologise because it is outrageous to suggest that I have done something which I have not and it might be considered an abuse of ministerial privilege to do so. I thank Maurice Golden for his further contribution. Obviously correction of the record is a matter for the member concerned and that is what I can say as the Presiding Officer. Further point of order from Mark Ruskell. On a further point of order, Presiding Officer, I think it is important that members provide accurate information on the record and I have just been sat here at my desk actually reading the said blog from Maurice Golden from 2019, which I believe is in an archive so it makes very interesting reading and I think it is just important, Presiding Officer, that all members are accurate and truthful about their previous positions on matters of policy as well as their current positions. I would advise Mr Ruskell that that is not a point of order either. Thank you. I believe that it is now time to move on to the next item of business but before that there will be a short pause to allow front bench please Mr Kerr to allow front bench teams to change positions should they so wish. Thank you.