 The next item of business is topical questions, and at question number one I call Liam Kerr. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to commence its deposit return scheme on 1 March 2024. Due to the 11th hour intervention by the UK Government to change the parameters of Scotland's deposit return scheme, both to remove glass from the scheme and to add significant uncertainty around essential parts of the scheme, for example the 20p deposit and the costs to producers and fees for retailers, it is clear that Scotland's deposit return scheme in the scope and form passed by this Parliament cannot go ahead as currently planned. Over the last 10 days and right now we are urgently establishing to what extent there is a way forward for a modified scheme, its scope, terms and timescales. That crucially depends on whether the UK Government can provide timely, stable and reliable assurances on basic operational matters such as trading standards, the 20p deposit and producer fees. It also depends on to what extent there is industry support for an alternative scheme. I am writing to the UK Government today to ask for an urgent discussion about those conditions. I will update Parliament at the earliest opportunity with the outcome of those actions and what that means for Scotland's deposit return scheme going forward. I am not sure that the Parliament heard an answer specifically on 1 March 2024, but in any event the minister mentioned glass. Circularity Scotland, the scheme administrator, says that they believe that the scheme is viable to launch without glass. The First Minister claims that removing glass threatens the viability of the scheme. They can't both be right, so who doesn't know what they are talking about, the First Minister or CSL? The member and certainly the Conservatives are on very sugly ground when discussing glass, given that Rishi Sunak, Alistair Jack and Douglas Ross stood on a manifesto to put in place a deposit return scheme with glass. Not only are the UK Tories undermining our scheme with glass, but it looks like they are doing the same thing to Wales as well. Glass is one of the three main materials used to make single-use drinks containers, and it counts for more than a quarter of the containers. It doesn't make the same amount of business case to run a system without glass than it is. It undermines the fundamental point of deposit return, which is the environmental and litter benefits. Even the UK Government's own analysis of deposit return schemes across the UK showed that social benefits of reduced litter, emissions saved and the economy are increased by 64 per cent when glass is included. It is England that is the outlier here by removing glass from a bottle return scheme. We have much interest. I'd be grateful for concise questions and responses. Liam Kerr. We didn't hear much in that response. I think the implication is that the minister thinks that CSL doesn't know what it's talking about in that answer on glass, but in fact that answer was instructive, because over the past week the SNP Green Coalition has gone from mess to meltdown on deposit return. It has threatened to scrap it. It has tried to pick a fight with the UK Government and it has been caught misrepresenting one of Scotland's leading drinks producers. Can the minister tell us why does she think that division and conflict will be more productive in rescuing her scheme than collaboration and co-operation? I must absolutely highlight to the member and this chamber some of the misrepresentation that we have been hearing from particularly the Secretary of State for Scotland. His accusation that glass would be used for aggregate is completely untrue and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding in how deposit return scheme operates, or indeed how our wider recycling legislation operates. The misrepresentation from Alistair Jack on the process agreed, on adhering to common frameworks, the lack of timeliness with decisions on VAT on trading standards show that the UK is not acting with good faith here to support Scotland's scheme going forward and is in fact doing everything possible to undermine it. Myself and Circularity Scotland are looking at how we can take an alternative scheme forward in Scotland because the one that this Parliament passed has been shot down by Westminster. We were looking at an alternative scheme and I will report back to Parliament as soon as I possibly can on what that alternative may be. The UK Government has shown nothing but contempt for the Scottish Parliament and using the Internal Market Act of Effectively Rewrite Devolved Laws. As Professor Aileen Macarque has alluded, there is nothing in the Internal Market Act nothing that makes Alistair Jack the arbiter of what goes forward. This should have been done through the common frameworks. As a result of the UK Government's misguided intervention on U-turn, can the cabinet secretary say how much investment from Scottish business has been lost? Hundreds of millions of pounds of investment to prepare for the launch of the deposit return scheme across a range of businesses is now at risk unless, as a result of the UK Government's 11th hour intervention in our deposit return scheme, the exact figures on investment are held by industry but published estimates suggest that retailers will invest up to £200 million and producers have invested around £100 million for the scheme. Alongside that, contractors to Circularity Scotland, such as Biffa, will have invested significant funds with some estimating this at around £80 million. The minister will be aware that sites Scotland has concerns on how blind and partially sighted people will be able to access and take part in the deposit return scheme. Just last week, sites Scotland received a letter from the minister's officials, but that failed to address the issues that they raised. Will the minister take the concerns of sites Scotland and others seriously and use the delay to the deposit return scheme to ensure that blind and partially sighted people are able to take part in the scheme? Of course, any deposit return scheme must be accessible to every single person in Scotland, and that is true no matter whether they have disabilities or other impediments to make that more of a challenge. In particular, for non-sighted people or people with difficulty with sight, the design of reverse vending machines is absolutely intended to take that into account, and the intention, if a scheme is to go forward, is to work with retailers and handlers to understand how they can best support customers who are using a manual return point. I can refer the member to the equalities assessment that was undertaken as part of the deposit return scheme legislation. Maurice Golden Thank you, Presiding Officer. Both the minister and the First Minister have reaped havoc on the deposit return scheme. So can the minister tell us today when the missing gateway review will be published? There have been a series of independent gateway reviews undertaken throughout the design of the deposit return scheme with the most recent carried out in March. The Scottish Government is considering carefully the recommendations from this review and will share those and its response with the net zero energy and transport committee soon. Gateway review teams normally speak to between 12 and 15 interviewees. For this latest review, reviewers spoke to 45 people, including CSL, a range of producers, retailers, wholesalers and hospitality representatives. Liam McArthur That is a shambles that has been used in the making. All last week and over the weekend, we heard threats from the Scottish Government that if the UK Government did not back down, then DRSs would be dead in the water. The Scottish Government appears now to have back down, so does the minister believe that that will add to the confusion and add to the loss of confidence in the proposals that the Government is trying to bring forward? The member will appreciate that the UK Government has now blocked the scheme as passed by this Parliament. The devolved powers of this Parliament were used in 2020 to legislate for a deposit return scheme. That is a scheme that included glass, a scheme that clearly set a 20 pence deposit and other guidance to industry as to how the scheme was to be interpreted. The UK Government has used the internal market act—some might say abused the internal market act—to impose changes on this devolved matter. Changes at this very late stage in development of the deposit return scheme that we now have to properly assess. Our scheme, as this Parliament passed, cannot go forward. We know that that is the case. Is there an alternative scheme that can be made from the pieces that the UK Government has left us? That is what we are rapidly assessing with business stakeholders and with Circularity Scotland. John Mason. As I understand it in Wales, Mark Drakeford is taking a very firm line and arguing that glass should be included in their scheme. Can the minister explain why Scottish Labour is being so weak on this matter? Indeed. On matters for which the minister has general responsibility? There is no answer. Minister, you can address the question to the extent that you address matters for which the Scottish Government has general responsibility. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Labour used to be a champion of devolution as an opportunity to address a democratic void in Scotland and to ensure that Scotland could strike out on its own path if the Scottish Parliament, elected by the people of Scotland, chose to do so. It is exactly what Labour in Wales is doing by designing their own DRS to include glass, because they too understand the environmental and economic benefits of doing so. Wales is at an earlier stage than we are in deposit return. It has not yet passed the regulations, and once it comes to drafting their regs and doing the detailed design, Wales will very likely face the same barriers that we are now dealing with. Brian Whittle. I ask what would the impact be on glass recycling, including non-scheme articles of rolling out separate kerbside glass collection to those councils that currently do not have the service. The member will appreciate that the substantial change to deposit return as imposed upon us by the UK Government not to include glass is something that we are doing the assessments on. We are trying to figure out whether the scheme is viable to go forward in Scotland, and that includes looking at how this impacts recycling rates. We know that kerbside recycling rates tend to only get glass up to about 63 per cent. Deposit return can get glass recycling up to 90 per cent. That is a substantial reduction in broken glass litter and a substantial reduction in carbon emissions. That is why we know that including glass is a good idea, but, of course, now that we cannot include glass in our scheme, we are going to have to undertake a detailed assessment. After the delays and grandstanding between the UK and Scottish Government, we deserve better than this to get a viable DRS scheme, both the UK and the Scottish Government should get round the table as quickly as possible, especially given that Circularity Scotland today said that the scheme could go ahead. Over the past two weeks, I have asked the minister repeatedly, has she explored all the options? The minister will be aware that, over the weekend, I wrote to her urging to meet with GS1 UK, the only company in the UK that can provide globally recognised barcodes for profit. The minister has failed to meet GS1 UK and not for profit company, who have a solution that could at least reduce the burdens on industry in delivering the scheme and that most changed the conversation on the international market exemption. Will the minister commit to exploring every solution and meet GS1 UK immediately so that we can get a scheme that works? I have reassured the member repeatedly that we have looked at every possible option for carrying forward a scheme as passed by the Scottish Parliament. We know that that is not possible due to the limited exclusion passed under the internal market act. I will be writing today to the Secretary of State to ask for an urgent meeting tomorrow to deal with the operational matters to see if we can get the UK around the table to discuss those things. I am not hopeful, given their track record, how long it took them to make a decision on VAT but they still have not made a decision on trading standards and that they changed their own minds both on glass and on whether devolved nations should be able to set their own scope very late in the day. I can also remind the member that barcodes are not part of the regulations passed by the Scottish Parliament and are therefore not part of the legislation that we can consider here. The UK, because it has different powers, may include barcodes in their scheme, but we do not know because they have not passed the regulations yet. It would not really help anything for me to discuss it with a barcode manufacturer. Can the minister confirm that she is drawing up a modified scheme without glass? Does she think that modified scheme could be up and running by March next year? The member will appreciate that removal of glass is a substantial change, and that question that he asks is what I am working through right now. The Conservatives are betraying their own commitments on DRS because they see undermining Scottish Parliament as more important. To decide whether we can go ahead with an alternate scheme without glass is a very substantial decision. The First Minister and I will be meeting with industry representatives tomorrow. I am attempting to get a meeting with the UK Government urgently to decide whether that is feasible for us to go forward. Last week, Labour's First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, criticised the UK Government for renaiging on a 2019 agreement that allowed Scotland and Wales to establish our own DRS schemes, which include glass. Westminster's Tory Government wants Wales and Scotland to wait for an English scheme, but what assurances has she had that there will actually be a DRS scheme in England? When will it be up and running, and what the rules for interoperability actually will be? The member will appreciate that I am unable to answer that question, because the UK Government has not passed its regulations. They say a day of 2025, but we have not seen any sort of critical pathway to making that decision. They haven't got a scheme administrator in place. They haven't even determined whether their deposit will be 20p to match ours. They can't even answer basic questions about interoperability. They say that we have to adhere to their rules, but they haven't written the rules yet. Will the deposit be 20p? Will the producer fees change? We cannot answer that, because the UK Government has taken away our power to do so. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the reported demonstrations in south US due to ferry withdrawal. Before moving to the very important matter of ferry services to south US, I want to acknowledge the news this morning that my colleague the former Minister for Transport has tendered his resignation from post. I want to thank him for his work. I want to wish him well and ask that he is given the space to recover from the matters that he has very bravely spoken of this morning. Moving to the substantive question and the important matters in hand, I want to acknowledge very clearly the dissatisfaction and upset that is felt. Ministers are very well aware of the strength of feeling from engagement that we have had, including from the former transport minister's recent visit to south US, and from meetings including with the south US business impact group. Technical issues with major vessels and delays to the annual overhaul programme have led to cancellations of sailings and, regrettably, communities. There are some that have been more impacted than others. Ultimately, south US evidenced this by its demonstration on Sunday. The fact that it has lost confidence in CalMac is clear to see. We have expressed our disappointment at CalMac at how the communications and engagement have been handled. I have been very clear that no stone must be left unturned in addressing the issues for the US. I have asked urgently that CalMac review the route prioritisation matrix to ensure that it reflects the socioeconomic impacts that pertain in particular to fragile communities such as south US. I also wish Kevin Stewart to speedy recovery. I say to the cabinet secretary that this is not a problem with comms, it is a problem due to the lack of ferries. The blame for the lack of ferries sits squarely at the door of her government. She must stop passing the buck because south US has lost confidence not in CalMac but in the Scottish Government. She must be concerned when she sees a third of the population of south US demonstrate their displeasure. If 200,000 local people descended on this Parliament protesting, the Scottish Government could not possibly ignore them. Businesses are going to the wall because of this Government's failure to provide ferries. Will she now compensate them? The operational matters on the running of the ferry network are for CalMac, so it is only right that I reflect that in this Parliament. However, I will not prevaricate on the point that pressure in our ferry network is as acute as it has been. Ministers empathise deeply with communities who have been affected. We understand their frustration. For our part, for what we are responsible for, we are working in the here and now to press CalMac on the prioritisation matrix, which I mentioned in Ms Grant's initial question, on communications. I understand that that is perhaps the tip of the iceberg, but it is important nonetheless for day-to-day activities and on ensuring that disruption is as minimal as possible. All the while, the Government is working to find and to procure new vessels, additional vessels for the network, with six vessels due on the network in the coming years beginning as soon as spring. On the matter that the member raises regarding compensation, those have, understandably, rightly been raised many a time with this Government. We have looked at the penalty deductions that are made in relation to failures on the network, and my view is that we should continue to use that money to reinvest in the ferry network. If I can give an example of how that is working to date, the £9 million cost of the charter of the MV Alfred, which is currently providing resilience on the route to Arran, is partly funded by performance deductions from CalMac of around £1 million to £3 million per year. I think that it is right that that money continues to be used for that purpose, because we can see how it adds resilience to the network. The cabinet secretary is well aware that CalMac cannot build ferries. The Scottish Government can build ferries, and she says that she has paid £9 million for a charter. That could have bought the boat for £9 million. Here in Edinburgh, businesses were rightly compensated due to disruption when the tram line was being built. The Government have clawed back £2.5 million last year alone from CalMac and penalties. She could create a resilience fund from that money that was clawed back to help businesses who are going to the wall right now because of her Government's incompetence. It seems to me that it is out of sight, out of mind. If it happened in Edinburgh, we would not get away with it. If it happened in the south of the United States, just forget it. I think that when I will continue to engage with communities on that and indeed press CalMac to do likewise, I think that what communities want most of all is a ferry service that is reliable for them so that they can get on with their lives without having to worry about the disruption. Disruption, which I flatly acknowledge, is causing upset and disruption, but that is why I have outlined why, with the powers and the gift of the Scottish Government noting that operational matters are for CalMac, we are doing two sets of work. One is pressing CalMac in the here and now to improve the resilience in the service, to improve communications, to test that prioritisation matrix, to make sure that it takes into account all matters that are important to islanders and, at the same time, using powers within our gift to procure and to bring vessels on to the network. For example, since re-election, the Government has bought and deployed an additional vessel in the MV Loch Frisia. We have chartered the MV Arrow to provide additional resilience and capacity. We have commissioned two new vessels for Islay and two new for the Little Mint Shrewts. That is before we speak of 801 and 802 due to being delivered from Ferguson's. I recognise the work done by Mr Stewart as minister, not least through his recent visit to South Uist. South Uist is a community that has had reason to feel that CalMac has been treating them with disdain. CalMac says that the decision to abandon ferry services to the island was essentially due to their prioritisation process, but that is a process that takes no account of the fact that it is the same route, the same community, the same businesses and the same individuals who constantly bear the brunt of disruption. It takes no account of the relative economic fragility of the place and takes no account of island circumstances. What can be done to challenge and reform this matrix, this process that is depriving South Uist of its ferry and ensure that South Uist stops being the default decision for cancellations every time there is disruption? I mentioned that the former transport minister had met the South Uist business impact group on Thursday last week. Discussions in that meeting did principally centre on some of the issues that Dr Allan has rightly narrated, including that route prioritisation matrix. To help address those issues, ministers have pressed CalMac on the need to review the current matrix to ensure that the points that Dr Allan rightly makes are part of that. I expect that to be done in consultation with the ferry community board and with community representatives with really deep consultation with them. This afternoon, we will meet CalMac for an update on the work that we have asked them to do, both on the substance of it and how they are ensuring that communities are consulted as part of the process. Donald Cameron Thank you, Presiding Officer. On behalf of those benches, I wish Kevin Stewart a swift recovery. Several small businesses from the US have contacted me calling for compensation due to lost earnings as a result of the ferry crisis, stating that regular cancellations and rerouting have resulted in cancelled bookings and a real fear for their future. I have asked the First Minister, I have asked Kevin Stewart, and I have now asked the Cabinet Secretary for the sake of those people and their livelihoods. Will she revisit the Government's position on the issue of compensation? It would be wrong of me to be, as candidates I have, about how much we understand the frustration of island communities and then to close myself off to having discussions about anything that communities would be calling for. I recommit Ministers to having conversations such as those that we had with the South US Business Impact Group, such as those that we are having with CalMac, but I reiterate that, which I said in a previous point on compensation, that I do believe that what islanders want most of all is for the Scottish Government and for CalMac to focus on improving the service in the here and now and for the future, so that reliability on that service is not something that communities have to worry about on a daily basis. I have narrated already how some of the penalty deductions that are made from CalMac are utilised to provide that very resilience that everyone so much desires, and I believe that that is the right way to continue to address the issue of financing improvements, albeit that I am listening to everyone with a view on this matter. Thank you. That concludes topical questions.