 Good morning, and welcome to the 21st meeting of the next zero energy and transport committee for 2023. Today, we have apologies from Fuchs waiting hour. a doors is going to be attending her substitute. And I'd like to welcome you to the meeting Bob the first item on the agenda relates to you Bob is that this is the first meeting. You are attending as a substitute member of edrych i rydych chi ddylch chi'n gwybod fel ydych chi'n cael ei cynhyrchu yn materiad. Fy gael eu gweithio, Gallowain. The truth is that I have a given. On occasion, as I get my attention to my deeply interested in the details of the details of the details, I will draw members to my grew of my first report where people refer to me. The Parliament's website has nothing in particular that I feel that is required to draw to the committee's attention. I look forward to joined me for this morning's evidence session. Thank you very much, Bob. The second item of business is a decision on taking business in private. mae'n ni i gydó'r pethau eu hunain fathau, 6 a 7, ymddangos, ymdangos, ymdangos, os ymdangos, unrhyw o hyn i gyd ddymiadau ymdangos. Mae'n ni i gyd ddymai ymateb o'r ddyn nhw, ac ymdangos, ymdangos, ymdangos, yn ei ddigon economiadau. Mae ymdangos, sy'n gweithio'i hi eithaf eu hunain fathau? Mae'n gweithio. Mae'n hi i gyd wedi gael ei ddechrau i'r feithio, maen nhw'n gwelio eu hwn i gyd. Ieithiwch gan pause a gennym fod yn gweithio'r gweithio, ac rydw i yw'r digwydd fel y rwyfyrdd yw'r éu Llywodraeth hon yn gwneud, Cymraeg a Llywodraethau a Gwasanaethau yn ei wneud ofyn uchydig, yw dda yn y gweithio'r gweithio, ond nid i'w wneud i'r ffeudiau, ond nid vo'r gwneud. Felly, i ddwy'r gwneud ar y gyrsleddau agen strawberryll ym 5 ym 10, ac i fyfl yn sefyllfa gor�DImod ar y syl metres deiligio'r gweithio yn gweithio gyntaf. At our meeting on 25 April, the committee agreed to invite the minister for green skills, circular economy and biodiversity to provide a further update on the progress in implementing the deposit return scheme. The deposit return scheme for Scotland amendment regulations 2023 were laid in this Parliament on 17 May and the instrument is laid under an affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve it before it comes into force. It gives effect the announcement of an intended postponement of the start date of August 2023 to March 2024. The Scottish Government has since announced that it proposes to delay the launch of the date to October 25, stating that the scheme cannot go ahead as planned. The minister wrote to the committee about her intention to revisit the draft regulations on today's agenda. We are therefore allocated just over an hour for this evidence session and to allow some discussion with the minister about the recent developments of the Scottish Government's proposal to revisit the scheme. Following the evidence session, the committee will be invited on the next agenda item to consider a motion to approve the instrument. I would like to, first of all, say that I am slightly sorry, Minister, for keeping you waiting. There were some matters that we had to iron out first, but, Minister, on the stage, I would like to welcome you to the committee and for those that don't know, I am sure that everyone knows that you are the Minister for Green Skills, Secretary of Economy and Biodiversity. I would also like to welcome Elisa Hain, Solicitor, David McPhee, the Deputy Director of the Deposit Return Scheme, Ewan Page, the Head of UK Frameworks and Hayden Thomas, the Head of the Deposit Return Scheme Policy Unit for the Scottish Government. Thank you for joining us today. We have also been joined by Maurice Golden. I will offer you, Mr Golden, the opportunity to answer some questions near the end of our session. I remind everyone that the officials can only speak under this item, so anything relating to the regulations needs to be that you require answers from them, needs to be raised in this session. Minister, I am going to give you the opportunity for a short opening statement, if you would like to state that. Thank you very much, convener. Last week, I told Parliament that the Scottish Government was left with no other option than to delay the launch of Scotland's DRS until October 2025 at the latest. That was a direct result of the UK Government's decision on 26 May and reaffirmed on 5 June to refuse a full exclusion from the Internal Market Act. Instead, the UK Government agreed to a partial and temporary exclusion with additional significant conditions imposed on our scheme, including the removal of glass. This Parliament legislated on May 2020 for an all-inclusive deposit return scheme. We did so because the evidence, both economically and environmentally, is stronger. We did so because there was an agreement across the UK nations that all schemes would include glass. The IMA was brought in after our DRS regulations. As a result, we sought a broad exclusion to cover both our single-use plastic ban and the DRS. We have therefore been in discussions for almost two years to agree an exclusion for DRS, in line with the agreed common framework process. The inclusion of glass in our scheme was not questioned during that process. Indeed, as recently as January this year, the UK Government confirmed in its consultation response that it was for each of the devolved nations to decide on the scope of their deposit return schemes. It is therefore deeply regrettable that the UK Government chose to unilaterally impose a partial and temporary exclusion at the 11th hour, removing glass and imposing conditions that we would have to align to. However, with no detail on what we were expected to align to. Since then, we have engaged intensively with delivery partners and industry to understand how the UK Government's requirements affected their preparations for launch of Scotland's DRS. The overwhelming feedback from industry, both publicly and privately, is that they could no longer prepare for a March launch based on the significant uncertainty caused by the UK Government's conditions. I remain wholly committed to introducing DRS in Scotland and I remain keen to work with the other UK nations in the spirit of collaboration, not imposition, to see how we can maximise interoperability while recognising the decisions that this Parliament has made. The regulations that the committee is considering today were laid on the 17th of May, before the UK Government's last minute decision on the Internal Market Act. The changes before you today are sought by and welcomed by industry, which is why we are discussing them today. The one exception, of course, is the date. Without the changes today, the go live date would remain as the 16th of August this year. The regulations change that to March 1 next year. As I have explained, the UK Government intervention meant that this date, in turn, is no longer possible. I am committing to bringing before Parliament further regulations in line with parliamentary process, procedures and timelines to change that to October 2025. I recognise, convener, that this process is more convoluted than any of us would wish, but that is where the UK Government's intervention in wholly devolved matters has left us. Of course, I am happy to take questions. Thank you very much, minister. There are a lot of questions that will not be surprised today. The first ones are going to come from Mark Ruskell. Mark. Thanks very much, convener, and good morning to minister and officials. Sorry, I can't join you in person this morning. Minister, you spoke about moving forward with a spirit of collaboration. Can I ask you what that route forward now actually looks like? In terms of trying to secure agreement on interoperability and on other areas that are currently significant uncertainty regarding the Scottish DRS and its interrelationship with other schemes around the UK, what is that route forward? How does that now take place? Thank you very much for the question. I think that there are two elements that I would like to include in the response. One is that I have a meeting arranged tomorrow with minister Rebecca Pow to have exactly this discussion about how the UK would like to work together with us going forward. Our scheme in Scotland is well advanced. We have passed our regulations, we have amended them in line with industry, including the amendments that are being considered by the committee today. We know that we have a coherent scheme on the books that is workable by industry, and we have been a significant way down the path for delivering that. The question with the UK is what does interoperability look like to them? Does it look like them going away and inventing something entirely different that they impose upon us, or will they take on board the learning that we have done in Scotland, the many years of work that we have done with industry, and of course the expertise that CSL has developed. CSL has within them the expertise not only on how these policies are to be implemented, but they have the industry connections and of course they were well on their way to delivering the IT systems and infrastructure needed. It is with the UK Government and our discussions with them to understand how we carry that forward. I have a substantial question about how we work with the UK going forward, given that we no longer have the common frameworks. The common frameworks are the tool by which we work with the UK, but those have effectively been smashed up by this 11-hour intervention. I have got today with me Ewan Page, who is our expert on these areas. Perhaps you can add some detail on how we might move forward, given that we do not have the common frameworks any more. As the minister states, the DRS episode has placed enormous strain on common frameworks as agreed intergovernmental processes designed to manage questions of regulatory interoperability and alignment across the different territories of the UK. They offer the best extant model that we have for managing these questions and to introduce and allow for balance and proportionality in these discussions, which is almost wholly missing from the internal market act and its operation. There is an open challenge about how we can learn from this episode and instill confidence that the common frameworks are a viable means of managing these discussions in a more proportionate way that respects the autonomy and rights of the devolved institutions. Can I just get this clear? You are saying that the common framework effectively doesn't exist. What is the forum to have a discussion around all the areas of uncertainty, so the potential deposit level of a scheme in England, the labelling? What is that forum where this uncertainty can be discussed and resolved? The common frameworks exist as published documents about how we are supposed to work together, but because they have not been followed, it is not clear to me how we move that forward. As we have said many times in the chamber and published online, the Scottish Government followed the common framework process all the way through, but that did not result in the exclusion for the internal market act that we needed in order to launch our scheme. It is not clear to me how we move forward if that common frameworks process can be disregarded without proportionate analysis and impact assessment by the UK Government at a very late stage. After years of working together, it is unclear to me how we progress, but I am going to discuss the matter with Minister Powell tomorrow. I also intend to raise this at our intergovernmental meeting in September to understand how the UK Government intends to work with us going forward if it does not intend to adhere to those common frameworks. Is there a way back on this? If Minister Powell turns around and says, yes, we will discuss all those areas of uncertainty and will grant Scottish DRS the ability to set the framework for the rest of the UK, or even just have a set of rules that can exist for a period of time, is there a way forward on this? It is an interesting question. One thing that we have not had from the UK Government is any sort of analysis or impact assessment on this decision that they have made to grant a partial exclusion. The UK Government had asked for the Scottish Government to provide additional impact assessments over and above what is required by the common frameworks, and of course, in the interest of supporting our DRS, we provided all the additional documentation and analysis that was requested. What came back to us was this partial temporary exclusion, with no analysis done about the impact of that, with no understanding about the justification, the proportionality. Nothing has been explained to us by the UK Government, so I genuinely do not know their intentions going forward for whether they intend to, as I would advise them to, take on board the years of work that we have done with industry that Circularity Scotland has done with industry to put together a workable scheme, or whether they intend to develop something entirely independently and then impose it upon the devolved nations. The second part of my question on this then is just around what those specific areas of uncertainty actually are. Could you just run through those, minister? Absolutely. There are three in particular that mean that the decision to delay beyond March 1 was necessary. The first is the matter of the deposit. Scotland's deposit return scheme was based on a deposit of 20 pence. One of the conditions placed upon us by the partial and temporary exclusion to the internal market act was that the deposit level must align with the UK. The UK Government has not passed their regulations yet, so we do not know if they will set their deposit to be 10 pence, 25 pence, 30 pence. We just do not know. Having a deposit return scheme where you do not know what the level of the deposit is is clearly undeliverable. Other matters in this same area are around the sizing of containers that are within scope. The miniature sizing, for example, in Scotland's scheme, the container size that you will be considering today is to change the minimum container size to 100 millilitres, but we know other parts of the UK, for example Northern Ireland, are considering 150 millilitres. Again, if we do not know what materials are included in the scheme, how can we programme reverse vending machines to accept those materials? How can we tell businesses that they must charge a deposit on those materials? That is completely unknown. How can we implement a deposit return scheme if we do not know to what materials a deposit might apply? The final one that is really critical in this area, which means that the March launch is impossible, is around labelling requirements. The Scottish deposit return scheme, because those matters are not devolved, does not include, through legislation, any requirements on labelling and barcoding, et cetera. However, the UK scheme might—the UK Government—have powers in those areas. From speaking with businesses and working with them over many years, I know that, particularly for small businesses, they need at least a year to update their labelling and so on because of the timeline for getting designs ordered and produced and so on. That means that if the UK Government did include regulations for labelling, as they say they might, and that was to happen, say, in autumn this year, that would absolutely in no way give businesses time to get their labelling right before a March 1 launch. Those are the three concrete reasons why it is absolutely impossible for us to launch with these conditions imposed as they are. Mark, can I just come in with a full-up question on that before you go on to your next one? I've just got a final one. Is that okay if it doesn't go back to you after that? No, you ask your final one and I'll come in. The question that follows on from the minister is just about the divergence within the UK. Is there a sense that the UK Government wants one single scheme for the whole of the UK, or is it a matter of allowing the different nations of the UK to have their own schemes, but there needs to be maximum alignment in that? Will there be any kind of allowance of any divergence at all within that? You just mentioned the fact that there might well be different regulations in Northern Ireland in relation to bottle sizes. Is there a sort of one common model for DRS now across the UK that the UK Government wants to see in place, or is there the possibility of there being different schemes but with an element of alignment within those? Within the last six months, we've seen a substantial shift in the position of the UK Government on this matter. Within January, they're clearly saying in their own documentation that it was for devolved nations to take the decisions on these matters. Now, in May, they're saying that they will not grant exclusions for these and that they want this sort of interoperability, but it looks like the mechanism for the interoperability is potentially one of imposition, of imposing these things rather than working cooperatively. Of course, I would very much hope that we could work cooperatively and in genuinely to everybody's benefit, because Scotland is so far ahead. We are years ahead of the other nations of the UK. We have done so much work. We've gathered so much expertise, much of which is encapsulated in circularity Scotland, but also in our other bodies, like SEPA, for example, and in industry in getting ready, that the other nations of the UK would be able to pick up from where we are and run with it, if you like. That would make the most sense for smooth implementation, but it isn't at all clear to me that that is the UK's intention. It may be their intention to develop a separate scheme, which they would then impose on us. Those are exactly the questions that I shall be asking Minister Pow tomorrow. Minister, I'm just a little bit confused here. If the system is going to work across the United Kingdom, surely the same level of deposit should be charged on containers across the whole of the United Kingdom, which is what I think is the intention of the UK Internal Market Act. Is that not right? It would be wonderful to have the same level of deposit across the UK. We've passed regulations saying that would be 20 pence here, but we don't know what it might be in the rest of the UK, so I can't comment on what that might be. So is your view that you want to impose the level that you want on the rest of the United Kingdom, or is it that you just believe that the United Kingdom should do what you are doing? It is my view that the Scottish Parliament should be able to legislate on fully devolved matters and that the deposit in Scotland is 20 pence. That number has not been pulled out of thin air. That is the result of many, many years of work to develop that as the right amount for the deposit. So I think it would make sense for the UK Government when setting its deposit to look at the work that we have done and to work together on it with us. But these things need co-operation and they need discussion, and that is not what we've had. We've had this 11th hour intervention saying that we might change this. Minister, with the greatest respect, I'm trying to keep the politics out of this. So what I'm trying to work out is if, say, the rest of the United Kingdom decided that it was 10 p for a can rather than 20 p, do you think that if that is the majority decision that would be the wrong way to go? It depends what the convener considers a majority decision. We know the Welsh are considering a scheme along the lines of ours, for example they had included glass. So are you measuring a majority decision by the largest nation? Are you suggesting the largest nation should impose it? Or are you suggesting that we are a group of four nations and we should agree this between how many nations wish to go ahead with a different scheme? Well, I think it's all about making sure the market's correct. I think that's where we need to be. What slightly concerns me is that you seem to be wedded to a figure that would mean it could be higher or lower in Scotland, which could mean that there would be problems with the internal market, which is what the act is trying to protect. Sorry, I'll come to you in a second, David. The Scotland's regulations for deposit return with that 20 pence deposit were, of course, passed in advance of the internal market act and cover a fully devolved matter. So when those regulations were passed, that was done on basis of work and research about what would be the right deposit level for our scheme. I'll pass over to David. Sorry, minister. It was hidden me what to come in as well. It was just to be clear that we work very closely with counterparts across the UK at official level. We've engaged very positively with colleagues across the UK on a number of these issues for a long time now in discussing this. The change has actually been about the fact that in the past we have been making these decisions, pushing forward with the idea of delivering our scheme and then the rest of the UK schemes coming into place. We've always thought that interoperability would be an important point and we'd want to do it, but the change now with the IMA decision was that we couldn't go ahead without agreeing these things in advance and allowing us to push forward with the decisions that we had, which meant caused that uncertainty because we couldn't actually say to businesses at this point, this is the position on these issues because we're being told we can't go ahead without these issues being aligned now in advance of that decision, whereas we always knew in the longer term we'd want to work with our UK government counterparts to ensure as much interoperability as possible. The change in context is the fact that we were already in discussions on all of these issues with the UK Government but only through the IMA processes have been made clear that we can't go ahead without agreeing these things at a four nations level, which is a relatively new intervention. So was the mood music that 20p was the right level to set? The decision from our colleagues in Deffra and Wales, for example, is that they haven't made the decision yet on what their appropriate deposit level would be and they would have to work through what that meant, both in terms of the impact on businesses but also in terms of the impact on their deposit management organisation, which doesn't exist as yet in the sense that they have to understand what the mechanics means for that business model, what that means for the businesses themselves, so at the moment they haven't made that decision. As I say, we continue to engage effectively with officials across the UK to discuss these issues but at the moment they haven't made a decision about what that looks like and whether it would be a single deposit level or variable deposit levels or all these issues are still not decided as yet across the other nations. In that position it was impossible for us to say what that deposit could be because it's not been made at that point. Okay, David, that's helpful minister. Do you have a view from your discussions whether the mood music of 20 pence per container was going to be something that all the other interested parties in the UK would buy into? It isn't something we've discussed in detail as to what their scheme might look like because they haven't yet passed their regulations or indeed given us insight into what those regulations might be. I think you and had a comment. Minister, sorry, I just want to push you slightly on this by May is that that seems pretty fundamental basis of this and you don't believe that's yet been discussed. It absolutely hasn't been discussed on a four nation basis which is why this internal market act exclusion is so impossible for us because they are saying you must comply with our deposit level but they haven't even begun the work to establish what that deposit level will be. Okay, I think Bob wants to come in but my point is a slightly questions therefore where the failure is if you haven't got that level of granularity when it comes into it. Bob, I'm going to bring in. Minister, I'm just wondering from your evidence so far it would appear as if the Scottish Government was open to a four nation approach where if there were any concerns about interoperability of the level of deposit of labelling of the size of container that those could be worked out and it would be maybe not essential but desirable for there to be that maximum alignment across all four nations. So my question I think convener would be has the UK Government had the opportunity to raise concerns over what labelling might look like in Scotland, what the size of container might look like in Scotland and what the level of deposit might look like in Scotland. So if they've had those opportunities, have they had those opportunities for the last six months, the last year, the last two years and have those ever been raised with the Scottish Government? I think the member very much for that question. Of course the UK Government has had the opportunity to raise at any time in the last three years since our regulation has been passed. I meet with my counterparts at DEFRA monthly at which we discuss exactly these matters and that level of detail has not yet has never been raised with the UK Government. As I have already said as recently as January this year, the UK Government was restating their position that the scope for deposit return schemes was for the devolved nations. So at no time before January this year, since the regulations were laid, did the UK raise any concerns about the details of Scotland's scheme. Although we all had an agreement that we would work together to make sure the schemes were interoperable, of course it's in everybody's advantage to make sure those schemes work well together, but there's a big difference between ensuring schemes work well together and being told you have to comply with something that doesn't yet exist or even to comply with something that's been created in Westminster and then imposed on us in a devolved area. On-going discussions through a common framework between four nations over the last three years where it was hoped that there would be maximum alignment in relation to labelling, container size and the deposit costs as well, but at no point in those three years, despite the hope to get alignment, did the UK Government ever raise any issues with any of these things up until very, very recently? That's correct. Thank you. Good morning minister and to your officials. I wonder if the minister can help the committee by explaining what confidence assessment was received by the Scottish Government following the March 2023 gateway review of the Scottish deposit return scheme? Certainly. Gateway reviews are done periodically on a big delivery process like this. The purpose of a gateway review is to give a sort of snapshot of where the progress of delivery is to help us to understand how our on-going engagement, both in terms of delivering that project but working with industry, is working to give us guidance on how we're going to move forward. That gateway review was a snapshot of where the situation was with the project delivery in March. Of course, since March, we've had substantial changes to the scheme, including after that point on March 2024, when the delay was announced to March 1 last year. Since then, we've also had this intervention on that with the Internal Market Act, which is creating a necessary change to our schedule as well. In parallel with the gateway review, as part of the on-going assessment that we always do, we had announced in April a set of changes to the scheme to address some of the stakeholder concerns. The work that was necessary to deliver the programme necessitated those changes, and what we did was revise the governance arrangement and put in place a system-wide assurance group with the ministerial strategic assurance group and then sector specific groups. Those groups had already started meeting, so that was us working together towards that practical delivery. We had developed the amendments regulations that are being delivered and discussed today, which changed the scheme scope and bolstered our resource to go forward. We have a much larger DRS team now to help to deliver that. All that work was done was focused on a March 1 delivery, but of course we are now looking at an August 2025 delivery with an entirely different set of legislation, which has yet to be defined. All of this work was done to deliver the legislation as passed by this Parliament. Now we have an entirely different scope, which is that we will be delivering as yet unknown legislation, hopefully in October 2025, but as the regulations haven't been laid, we don't know that either. That's the situation that we're in, is that there has been a lot of water under the bridge since March and we're in a different place now. Thank you. There's certainly some helpful information there. You talked about gateway reviews being a snapshot, looking at major projects such as this one. So, back in May 2022, under the Confident Assessment, the project was sitting at Amber Reds. I think that there was an improvement for October 2022 when it was Amber, so can you indicate what was the status in March? The status in March is that the gateway review identified that the lack of a decision on an IMA exclusion was a significant blocker to progress, as was the lack of ruling by trading standards on shelf-edge pricing was identified as a key blocker. Now, of course, as we've seen, that IMA exclusion risk that was identified has materialised, and so we are now working on next steps going forward as that has materialised. Okay, but that's still not an answer. I'm just trying to understand, in your traffic-like system, was that still amber minister or was it amber red or something else? Does one of the officials want to come in on that? I'm speaking to the minister. Does the minister know what the status was under the gateway review? I'll bring in the official on that point. So, apologies. As the minister set out in a letter last week, the plan is to provide the actions from the response to the gateway review before the end of Parliament, including the detail on the rating at that point. Again, I would note what the minister said, that, to some extent, that was done in a different context, at a different time and in a different position. One of the things that we want to do is make sure that we are fully representing all the changes that have happened since then towards the response to that gateway review and all the changes that have happened since March to make sure that we provide as full a response as possible before the end of the session. Thank you. I think that the Government knows that this committee has expressed a view in writing that we would have found it helpful to see the gateway review and to have that published. I think that it was the 23rd of May, which was three weeks ago, that the Government said that that would be published imminently. To me, imminently means quicker than three weeks. Is there a date when we will get that, as you said, before the end of the session? Before research is the intention. In the last three weeks, the member will be recognised that we have had substantial changes to the scheme and to the scope of the scheme. In order to be able to respond to that gateway review in the current context of what work we are doing to go forward and where we find ourselves, we only made these announcements last week, so we are updating our response to that review and we will publish that response before recess. I have no more questions on the gateway review. Can I just make an observation, Minister, if I may? I think that on the 14th of March, you said to the committee that the gateway review was imminent. On the 24th of March, you said in a letter that you would make it available. On the 24th of March, you advised us that I am committed to providing an indication of when the findings from the March gateway review will be shared. The review report is in the process being finalised. Therefore, I will share the findings with the committee in due course. You then, on the 27th of April, told us it would be imminent. I think I wrote to you regarding the report on the instructions of the committee asking for that gateway review on the 8th of June, asking for it to be provided as soon as possible. I make an observation that, if the committee asks for a report back in March and we still do not have it by June, I think that is disrespectful to the committee. I made that observation with no political point, just with an observation. I think that committees in this Parliament are there for a reason and it would have helped our session today if we had that gateway review before us. I am not asking you to respond. I am just saying that. I think that it is wrong. I would like to respond to that point, convener. It is not normal standard to publish gateway reviews that has been done in this project on occasion. What I committed to this committee was that I would respond with the findings of that review. I have shared some of those findings with you today in terms of the identified the lack of a decision on an IMA exclusion as a significant blocker and the lack of ruling on trading standards on shelf edge labelling as a key blocker. I have outlined to you the on-going work that we have been doing in that area, but, convener, as the member will recognise, there has been substantial change in this space in the past three weeks. I would like the report to this committee on the findings to be up-to-date with the context where we find it now. Therefore, we will publish that findings with you and the response before recess. I made no further observation on it, minister, except to say that I reread your words to you. I committed to providing an indication of when the findings from the March gateway review will be shared. You shared the other ones. As you rightly said, the committee has been pushing for it. I just made the observation that I think it has taken too long, convener. I am going to move on to the next questions, which come from Ash Regan. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the panel. I was going to ask you, minister, about the common frameworks process, which is obviously the way that this is all managed across the other parts of the UK. Having listened to your exchange between yourself and Mark Russell, you were saying that you can correct me if I am mischaracterising this in any way. You said that the Scottish Government had been following the common frameworks process, but the UK had not been following the process that they set out themselves, and you and Paige said that the process was under strain. That is how you described it. If this is the process that is set up in order to make this work, if you like, between and is the area where you would air these disagreements, is there scope now to make this function if it is not functioning at the moment, or do you think that we have gone past that stage now? It is an area of significant concern to me. These common frameworks, as far as I understand it, you and you can keep me right, pre-existed before Brexit, but have become even more important as we deal with the complexities of the Internal Market Act. If we no longer have that mechanism, if the UK Government can impose restrictions based on the Internal Market Act more or less on a whim without the proportionality, without the evidence, without the impact assessments, I do not know where that leaves us in terms of being able to work together as nations, but perhaps you can add some detail there. As the minister says, common frameworks predate the end of the transition period and the disapplication of EU law, which provided a symmetrically applied envelope or framework for legitimate devolved policymaking in each of the UK territories, including UKG acting for England. Frameworks also predates the Internal Market Act. I would put the question to the committee whether it is able to bear the weight of the disruption and uncertainty that the Internal Market Act causes. My final point relates to an earlier observation by the convener on anticipating the Internal Market Act's consequences of development and implementation of devolved law. I think that it is useful to keep in mind that there is a distinction between an internal market and the Internal Market Act, which is a very specific and anomalous piece of legislation that is overlaid on to the UK constitution and the devolution settlements. Common frameworks, when the principles underpinning common frameworks were agreed in October 2017, so way before work had started on the Internal Market Act. Those principles include a commitment by all UK Administrations to ensure the functioning of the UK's internal market while acknowledging policy divergence. Those words were chosen very carefully. They recognise that it is perfectly legitimate to design policy that has a market impact and that policy divergence is the purpose of devolution. That is very different from the rigidity and lack of proportionality introduced by the Internal Market Act, which does not really acknowledge policy divergence and does not recognise that there is a balance to be struck between local autonomy and market efficiencies. The common frameworks are not dead in the water, but we will have to consider very carefully the consequences of the DRS episode and recognise that they offer a viable alternative model for progress by agreement and collaboration. It should also be noted that, for example, within the EU, nations may diverge on policy around the environment, but the Internal Market Act prevents nations in the UK from diverging in the way that we would have been able to if we were a member of the EU. My understanding is that there is a dispute resolution function built into the common frameworks. It is the resources and waste framework, so I wonder if that has been raised as a dispute so far, or if not through the IGR resolution process. There was no use of the dispute resolution process as part of the common frameworks discussions because there was agreement between each of the Administrations that policy alignment was not possible and that an IMA exclusion was needed to allow the Scottish regulations to have their intended effect. There have been discussions through the new interministerial structures on the implications for all of this through the viability of common frameworks and the effect of the devolution settlement, but there have been discussions and items on agendas rather than a formal activation of the dispute resolution mechanisms. Thanks, Ash. The next questions come from Liam Kerr. Did the Scottish Government take formal legal advice prior to taking a decision to pause the scheme on the impact of that decision? The Scottish Government takes many types of advice and has received legal advice on matters relating to DRS on an on-going basis, as appropriate. The member will appreciate that this in the last two weeks has happened very quickly in terms of a very short timescale from when that letter was received and reaffirmed on June 5 to when I made the announcement to Parliament, but, in that time, I did meet and the First Minister and myself did meet with businesses to understand how they felt we should react to this development. That's not what I asked, Minister. Can we take it, then, that no legal advice was specifically sought prior to pausing the scheme on the impact of that pause? The content of legal advice is confidential at my long-standing convention. Did you take legal advice, Minister? Yes or no? As far as I know, that is a matter in which I am not able to discuss it so that I may be able to provide more detail there. As the Minister has said, the Scottish Government has received legal advice on matters relating to DRS on an on-going basis. But specifically on the decision to pause the scheme? The Scottish Government's position on any matter and its decision making is consistent with legal advice that it receives. The First Minister said on Sunday that no compensation would be from the Scottish Government to businesses who are out of pocket due to the aborted scheme. The Minister will appreciate that there is always litigation risk. How much of a contingency has the Scottish Government budgeted in case the position is not set out by the First Minister? In which budget line has that contingency made? The member will appreciate that we are working with industry to launch the scheme and that the matter of that sort of compensation is not something that was part of the Scottish budget. A responsible Government would surely make a contingency in case that position is not as it is. Do any of the officials have any comment on that? I would like the Minister's response, please, as representative of the Scottish Government. The position of the Scottish Government is that, while we recognise the steps that businesses have taken to get ready for DRS, ministers were required in the last few weeks to respond significantly to challenges imposed upon us by the UK Government. We do not consider that any action that we have been required to take gives rise to any obligation to pay compensation. So no contingency has been made or, Minister, do you not know if a contingency has been made? We do not believe that any action that we have been required to take gives rise to any obligation to pay compensation. Indeed. The scheme administrator, CSL, is funded by business. Correct. There is no longer a scheme to administer, so business presumably cannot continue to support CSL. Will the Scottish Government be funding CSL going forward? If not, what happens to CSL? CSL is a private not-for-profit company that is industry-led and designed to be funded by industry, so it would not be appropriate for the Scottish Government to fund the company. However, as we intend to go forward with the scheme in 2025 and as the UK Government having said they intend to go forward with the scheme in 2025, they will also need a scheme administrator. They will also need to develop the expertise that we already have. It is now a question for the producers of the UK at large to decide whether the smoothest path for an implementation of a UK-wide DRS is for them to keep CSL in continuity. I encourage them to do that, to keep that in continuity, to bring that expertise to the delivery of a UK-wide scheme. That is with the producers who fund CSL currently to decide. Until that happens, who is going to fund CSL? CSL has been funded, so it needs to work with its members and producers to decide on the future of that company. What is the nature of the £9 million start-up funding for CSL from the Scottish National Investment Bank? What happens to that investment going forward? Arrangements between the Scottish National Investment Bank and CSL are a private matter between those two organisations. I am not involved in that. But just for the avoidance of doubt, you do not know the nature of the investment that Liz Snib made to CSL. In terms of the contractual arrangements around that, I do not have that information. I am a bit confused. CSL has day-to-day living costs for keeping going, and industry knows that there is no scheme coming down the road until 2025. They pay quite a lot of money, or some parts of the industry have had to keep CSL going. Do you think that they are just going to continue to fund them on the chance that they will be needed in 2025? It is quite speculative, is it? Are you happy that that is a reasonable business investment? I am interested in the convener's use of the word on the chance that it might be needed in 2025. The UK has committed to launching a scheme in 2025, and we very much support them in that ambition, their stated ambition. In order to launch most successfully the smoothest path to a successful UK launch is to keep that expertise that CSL has created, and to keep that going forward. It is for industry to decide whether the smoothest path for them is to keep CSL going until that 2025 launch, or whether they wish to take another route. I do not think that I was saying on the chance that the scheme would go forward in 2025. I was saying on the chance that CSL might be needed in 2025. It is a punt from a business point of view to continue to fund that level of salaries and costs on the basis that that organisation may be part of the new scheme that comes out. All the schemes in the UK will require scheme administrators, scheme administrator organisations, and the UK will be asking industry to put together what they refer to as a DMO. We call it a scheme administrator here. They have said that their timeline for that is next year, 2024. The UK would be looking at putting in place their DMO in 2024. Now, one can imagine a scenario where the expertise within CSL and the producer investment in that is that they work together to apply to be that DMO for the whole UK. That is one route forward, but this is for industry to decide how they might want to take that forward. Okay, two questions coming on the back of it. Liam Kerr and then Bob Doris. Just for the avoidance of doubt, if industry decides not to fund in that interim period, then from your answer earlier minister, your position is CSL has enough funds to keep going during that interim period. Is that correct? That is not my position. That's not what I've said. I've said CSL has its existing funding, but to go forward it needs to work out what path it's going to take. Now, there are various paths available, but that's for them to work out with their producers who are their source of funding. And if their source of funding decides not to fund them because there is no scheme to administer in the immediate future, how will CSL keep going? How will it fund itself, minister? The industry will need to decide how they are to comply with regulations, so we will be bringing an amendment to our regulations saying that the scheme will go live in October 2025 in line with the UK scheme. Industry has to decide how to comply with those regulations. What they have done to do that is created CSL, so they now need to decide will they keep CSL going in order to comply or will they take a different route, for example, creating a different body? That's for industry to decide. We as Parliament lay the regulations and industry have to comply to those. The DMOs and scheme administrators are the tool by which industry comply with our regulations. Very reasonable line of questioning. I'm passing through this committee. I'm just here for one session only, but fascinating. I'm not cited on what the cost industry will be for the years with the schemes not in existence, but they still have a cost to endure there. However, it appears, minister, that the experience, learning, infrastructure and expertise that CSL has built up in recent times would be of direct benefit to the UK Government and other devolved nations. Is the Scottish Government doing anything? I know that it's an independent organisation separate from the Government, but is the Scottish Government doing anything to join those dots to suggest to the UK Government and be an active party to say, look at this experience, learning, infrastructure and expertise. Let's get around the table and let's look to see how we can make sure that this organisation is sustainable until the UK Government does make those decisions. That could, in part, lead to a financial commitment from the UK Government theoretically. That's certainly a very good question, and I intend that to be on the agenda with my discussion with minister Power tomorrow. Exactly that. To highlight the level of expertise, the level of industry connection that has been created, as well as all the sort of infrastructure that CSL has created in terms of how to write a producer contract, how to write, you know, how to calculate fees, how to do that business modelling—they have, for example, done extensive modelling on their logistics network to figure out how you collect materials and bring them back to sorting centres, including from islands and remote communities—all that extensive work is baked into CSL and their contract with Biffa. In terms of my conversation with minister Power tomorrow, I would absolutely recommend that the UK Government take on board that expertise. That might be in terms of supporting that expertise going forward so that this can be brought into the UK's DMO so that that work doesn't have to be redone, that investment remade, that investment that we have made here that CSL and businesses have made can actually be of benefit to the entire UK. Thanks, Bob. The next questions come from Mark Ruskell-Mark. Thank you, convener. I thought it's turned to the issue of the environmental impact of the exclusion of glass from the scheme and also the impact of the delay as well. Can you outline what those are, please, minister? Thank you very much. As the member will well know, glass is one of the three main materials that are used to make up single-use drinks containers, and it accounts for more than a quarter of all the containers that were to be included in our deposit return scheme launching in March. To put that into context, the Scottish deposit return scheme would include up to 600 million glass bottles, which is about how many reach the Scottish market every year. Our strategic environmental impact assessment, a dendym published in December 2021, shows that glass will account for 1.3 megatons of carbon dioxide savings over 25 years, almost 32 per cent of the total carbon savings of the scheme. Without glass in the scheme, we lose one of the substantial benefits, which is the reduction of our carbon emissions, which is, of course, our route to net zero is to reduce those emissions to a net zero perspective. Removing glass makes that much more challenging for us to reach. Of course, glass is one of our most problematic littered materials, broken glass on our streets and parks and so on, in particular because health and safety hazards for children, pets and anyone who then has to handle and clean it up. There is a view from some that we can meet recycling targets for glass just by investing in curbside collections. What is your response to that? There are two issues with counting on curbside collection alone to meet your cycling targets. One is that curbside collections are funded by local authorities, so they are funded by public money. The whole point of moving to the polluter pays principle is that those businesses that profit from damaging the environment, such as the creation of litter, pay for preventing that damage. Through a cross-government, we are moving to a polluter pays principle. The member will be familiar with the extended producer responsibility for packaging regulations that are currently being worked through on a common UK level as well toward making that polluter pays principle reality. The other one is practical around curbside recycling. Curbside recycling can only drive recycling levels up to about 64 per cent. With deposit return, you are looking at more like 90 per cent. Speaking with industry experts, curbside recycling for glass is what they call its lossy. Because items must be multiply handled between putting them in the boxes, tipped into the back of the truck and handled many times, you actually lose up to 40 per cent of the glass in that process. Equally because that glass can be contaminated, as is considered lower quality, curbside recycled glass generally does not go into being recycled into bottles. It goes into lower quality stuff like aggregate for roads. The whole point of a deposit return scheme is not only does it increase the amount of recycling that increases the quality of that recycling so that it can be fully circular and recycled back into glass bottles. That is the whole point of deposit return scheme. I have always struggled on this. We still need to collect glass in recycling bins, your jam jars and all the rest of it. Surely the local councils used to fund the collection through the money that they raised by collecting better glass, which they were selling on. Now it is just going to be a loss for them, isn't it? Why not be a loss leader? Be a loss? Many councils actually do not collect glass at all, so there is the ability and we are moving forward as we bring the circular economy bill to encourage councils to standardise collections so that everywhere collects glass. In aggregate, there will be more glass in the system because there will be more, as you say, jam jars, make-up bottles, all those sorts of things would be included in the scheme. As we improve curbside recycling, those glass materials can be used to meet that need for glass aggregate and all those other recycled glass materials that are not as efficient as recycling back into glass, but are still materials that are needed. Those glass materials are still very valuable. So that will cover the council's cost if they have lost the bottles, those that collect the bottles? Certainly our impact assessments on what with the deposit return scheme shows that overwhelmingly councils benefit from having deposit return scheming because it overall reduces their costs, particularly around handling litter, but I am happy for any of the officials to come in on the benefits to local authorities of the deposit return. I would not add much more than what you have said, minister, that the fact that all the analysis that we have suggested is of benefit to local authorities to remove the glass. The other point that I would make is obviously that the UK Government's own analysis showed that the net present value of including glass increased the benefit from 3.6 billion to 5.9 billion, so there was a 64 per cent increase by including glass in the UK scheme from their analysis from a net present value point of view. Generally, glass brings with it, we think, significant environmental benefits, but it also brings wider benefits as well to business by including glass. The last point around glass is that I feel that it provides a level playing field so that all drinks producers are involved in the scheme. If you remove the producers that primarily use glass, then you have a bias in the market, a tilt in the market for businesses that are primarily can or plastic bottle based. Applying this to all materials that are used for drinks containers makes it a fairer playing field. The next question has come from Jackie Dunbar. Staying with glass, can you explain to the committee what the implications are for excluding glass, not only for the DRS scheme but for the wider economy? We have gone into some detail in the previous answer about how removing glass from deposit return schemes reduces the environmental benefit, reduces the littering benefit as well. We know, as David said, from the UK Government's own analysis that including glass in the scheme increases both the environmental and economic benefits by 64 per cent. It is a substantial increase. It is also, of course, normal to include glass in deposit return schemes. Of the 51 territories and countries operating deposit return schemes, 45 do include glass. It was the World Wildlife Federation that said, in what planet does a bottle return scheme not include glass bottles? It is sort of a common sense inclusion as well. In terms of the technical detail of the benefits of glass, I do not know if officials have anything to add. Again, I would add from our analysis that net present value, which takes into account the various environmental and economic social benefits, removes glass and takes the net present value of Scotland from £615 million to £337 million. That is our measure of the overall long-term impact of including glass or of the scheme, should I say. Removing glass reduces that considerably, reduces it by 41 per cent. I am aware that you engaged with retailers when you were developing the process. Have you had any feedback from them from the retailers regarding the recent intervention from Westminster? We have spoken with both retailers and producers in great detail. In particular, for example, tenants were very concerned about the removal of glass from the scheme because they are, of course, a particularly can-based business. Removing glass meant that that would render tenants uncompetitive and put in place a significant barrier for their business. That is, of course, what we sought to avoid by making sure that all businesses had glass included. In terms of retailers, there are some challenges in that space for everybody. Handling glass is heavy. It can be a health and safety hazard if it is broken. Handling glass is a challenge for people who need to handle it, but it has such significant environmental benefits and creates a fair playing field for producers that I feel that it is important that schemes have glass involved. I am just going to add that, as the minister said, we spoke extensively to retailers and producers. As the minister noted, a lot of retailers will say that excluding glass is a good thing from their perspective because of that handling point. As I said, the wider economic and environmental benefits we believe make the case for having glass. Some of them are supportive of not having glass, but the one point they would make is removing glass now is not a simple thing, which has changed the scheme significantly. They have to redo all of their calculations, particularly around their RVMs, where they situate them, where they put storage, how their range of footfall is around their stores, and the repost systems are about removing glass. Removing glass is not a simple issue. The other changes that are in there from interoperability also cause real concern for retailers and producers in terms of having that certainty to go forward. Removing glass is not just a simple thing of just saying, well, that's it, we won't do glass. Lots of systems have to be changed, planning permission has to be changed, all of these different things. Even training has to be changed. The strong feedback was that, while some of them might have said that they would have been happy without glass being in the scheme, removing glass now changes the entirety of the scheme, and that means that they were unable to therefore suggest that they could go ahead and march. Next question from Monica Lennon. Thank you. I'm interested to know what recent discussions Scottish Governments have had with the Welsh Government in light of the UK Government position? The Welsh Government are participants in our weekly intergovernmental meeting at the Four Nations. I must say that, from the last meeting, the Welsh are incensed that this interference would happen. Because they are at a different stage, they haven't passed their regulations yet either, they had understood, as we had, from that consultation response published by the UK Government in January, that clearly stated that this was a matter for devolved Governments to decide. The Welsh Government, fully intending to put glass into their scheme, had understood that they were also able to go ahead with glass. Now this interference that we've had around the Internal Markets Act, the Internal Markets Act applies to them too, so they are likely to see the same level of interference, and yes, they are incensed about that matter. I'm interested in the position taken in Wales, because even as recently as yesterday, this is according to a BBC article, Julie James, who is the Welsh Climate Change Minister, has said that they'll be taking the UK Government to task, and they seem quite confident that they can proceed with glass in a diaries scheme in two years' time. I'm just interested to understand whether you think that's got any implications for diaries in Scotland. Do you see further amendments or changes come 2025, if Wales somehow managed to have diaries with glass included? I thank the member very much for that question. Of course, I know Julie James very well. We meet monthly and have met on other occasions as well. I know that Julie would like to see that glass included in the scheme, and that is their ambition for Wales, as it is for Scotland. My understanding is that the Internal Markets Act issue will also be a problem for Wales. It hasn't come to the fore yet because it hasn't passed its regulation, so it may have to decide. It may be forced to pass different regulations than what it would like to do, or if it were to pass regulations, including glass, it may be forced as we are by the Internal Markets Act to revisit that before launch date. Of course, none of us know what the political situation might be by 2025. Just as context, it's not for the Scottish Government to talk to Welsh Government plans, but you'll be aware that the Welsh Government had previously sought to take legal action against the UK Government on the impact of the IMA on the devolution settlement in Wales. It's not for me to speak for Welsh Government, but that might be in their mind as well as someone who is made to be tested somewhere. Again, the context of this, as the minister says, is that Wales hasn't laid the regulations yet, and they are further away from that implementation. Again, another issue for businesses was that uncertainty from our perspective. If we had said that we were pushing ahead with glass without an IMA exclusion, that creates uncertainty and prevents businesses from getting ready and from being able to move forward. The point is that we had a launch date on the doorstep and needed that certainty to be able to move forward and make businesses with us. There's a difference about that conversation about what might happen versus what was actually happening as we were trying to move towards a launch in March 2024. Maurice Golden, welcome to the pretty, your chance. Thanks, convener. I'm interested in the governance of this scheme. We know that, as a result of FOIs, on 3 March 2021, CSL sent an application to the Scottish Government. The then cabinet secretary, Roseanna Cunningham, replied on 21 March 2021 with a series of concerns, one of which CSL was still establishing a company, no chair or board, was appointed due diligence on producer registration, and there's a whole host there. At that point, the Scottish Government required an agreement by 1 October 2021 with regard to CSL continuing with the scheme. Again, at this stage, there was a go live on 1 July, perhaps it's something that the committee would look at whether that was realistic. However, clearly, if it's a fully industry-led scheme, there'd be no application process to the Scottish Government and no engagement in the detail that's described. In between the letter on 24 March, and as part of that application process, and I quote from that application from CSL, and it says, CSL will not buy new vehicles or build new sheds. Clearly, we've seen that that has not been the case, and did the minister sign off on that? So my understanding of the process for becoming a scheme administrator and I will get officials to jump in and add the detail is that the regulations as passed in 2020 lay out the conditions for a scheme administrator, and the process is that when an industry body— I don't really know the explanation of the process. I just want to know if the minister signed off the fact. In the application form, it says that they will not buy new vehicles or build new sheds, and we've seen new sheds and new vehicles. I'm proceeding to answer the member's question, which is that the process to apply to be scheme administrator, the criteria for the scheme administrator is laid out in the regulations. As long as any business meets those criteria, it isn't within the power of the Scottish Government to deny them from being a scheme administrator because a scheme could have many administrators. That's not how that power for creation of the scheme administrator works. It doesn't come with those sorts of additional conditionality on how that scheme administrator operates, but I'm happy to get more detail from officials. I'm afraid that I don't know the detail behind the letters that took place back in 2021. The only thing that I would add is that Circulary Scotland has been focused on getting a scheme deliverable for 1 August this year and in March next year and doing what was required to ensure that they were able to make that scheme work as effectively as possible, working with their members who are made up of the producers and retailers who would essentially have to deliver the scheme. They have been focused on ensuring that they had the capacity and the processes in place to be able to deliver that scheme. The application process form also says that counting centres will be co-located with existing sorting or recycling sites on 25 May 2023. I asked for a list of those sites and the minister said that the Scottish Government does not hold that information. I wonder how the Scottish Government expects to deliver a deposit return scheme without understanding some basic tenants to make it successful. Are you really saying that the Scottish Government does not know which sites have been constructed or operational? The way that the scheme administrator works is that it is a company created by industry to deliver on the regulations as passed by this Parliament. There is not built into the regulations more powers for the Scottish Government to interfere in how that is done. We are absolutely following the regulations. What we have done, though, is work with industry on how that is going to work. CSL is responsible for implementing those matters on behalf of industry. Industry is responsible for complying with our regulations, and SEPA will enforce those. Those are the mechanisms in place to implement the deposit return scheme. In addition to that, we have added, as I outlined earlier, a governance structure to support delivery, which is the system-wide assurance group, which helps all the pieces of the puzzle to work together smoothly. That is a governance structure that has been implemented recently to ensure that we have that delivery smoothly. The operational details—for example, exactly where sorting centres are located and exactly how goods are to be transferred—are for Circularity Scotland. The regulations do not give us the powers to interfere with that. I am not asking to interfere just so that you can make an assessment, because clearly the deposit return scheme has been delayed four times now. If the Scottish Government is not aware of how it can deliver it, then it is no wonder. It is a relatively easy question. To the nearest £10 million, what is the total business liability as a result of the delay to the scheme? As I responded to one of the questions earlier, we do not believe that, based on the decisions that we have been required to take, there is any requirement to pay compensation. No, I was not asking that. I was just wondering what the total business liability was. Surely, if you are in any of the previous delays, that would be a total figure. I am not asking to give specific business liabilities, but the total figure, because clearly that is going to be a mechanism that you would use in order to decide whether to delay the scheme at any given point. I feel that the member has misrepresented the delays to the scheme. I am happy to go through in detail to explain those delays, because the member is suggesting that those have been done on a whim or because the scheme was not deliverable in some way. I do not recognise the term liability that we have had substantial investment in the scheme. So no businesses will need to pay a penny? We have seen significant investment in the scheme. The delays that the member refers to, I feel, need to be properly explained. According to the regulations passed in 2020, the scheme was due to go live last year in 2022. We have, of course, had the Covid pandemic and we had Brexit, which changed substantially the circumstances in which businesses were operating. In order to support businesses, we provided that first year of delay. That was to support businesses. That delayed us to August of this year. That was the launch date that we were working towards that launch date until, from February this year, some doubt was put into the public space by the Secretary of State for Scotland as to whether the Internal Market Act would be used to block our scheme. He managed to make good on that threat in May and veto and block our scheme from being implemented in the way that the Scottish Parliament had passed it. The latter delays were specifically around the interference with our scheme using the Internal Market Act. None of those had to do with any sort of suggestion that operationally the scheme was not progressing. How much do CSL require from producers or banks to survive on a monthly basis? That is a matter for CSL to decide as a private business. But does the minister know? It depends very much on the structure of CSL going forward. Whether they are, for example, trying to apply to be the DMO for the UK, whether they are waiting for a Scottish scheme, whether they will be continuing to work, maybe producers would like to continue to work to develop IT systems for example. There are many pathways forward for CSL and they are working that out right now with their members. So how much was required after the third delay for CSL to make it to march at that point? Are you aware of that figure? That is a matter between CSL and their producers. I am asking if you are aware because I have a figure and I would like to cross-check that. It is not a figure that I have that is an internal matter for CSL and they are working with their members. So you do not know? I do not have that figure. Obviously, we have regular discussions with CSL about it but the point that the minister was making and the point that we would stick by is that we certainly would not share any figures that are private with them as a company. They are a private company and they are not behold into government. The conversations that we would have with them about the potential, the futures and what that means are very much private discussions that we would not necessarily share because they are a private company and it is very much their matter. We of course take industry confidentiality very seriously. Of course, that is why I ask for the total amounts now. Others might think that the Scottish Government has a duty of care but this will be an easy one. Final question, convener. How much is budgeted for the deposit return scheme via Zero Waste Scotland? I am aware of the written question that the member has submitted on that and that Zero Waste Scotland does some work on the deposit return scheme as part of their budget. I do not have the breakdown of Zero Waste Scotland budget in front of me. That may be information that we can get from the member. I do not have the information in front of us but we can certainly come back. I am happy to come back to the member with that detail. Thank you. Now, just before we move on to the next item of business, I think it would be helpful, Minister, while you have your team around you, if we can just explore a wee bit about why we are going on to the next item of business, which is an affirmative SSI, which basically is delaying the scheme and modifying the scheme that was laid before Parliament to take it through to March 2024, when we know that it is not going to start in March 2024. What I would like to know is what have you done, Minister, to look at expediting the outcome so that the committee can consider something that appears to me and may appear to people outside is purely a delaying process kicking some parts of the scheme down the road just so we do not have a start date? Could we have done something different where the committee considered a SSI on this to put the whole scheme on hold rather than amending it before recess? I would like your views just on that. I think that people watching would find it helpful. That is an excellent question, convener. I am very happy to go into that in detail. The urgent matter that we have before us, as you all know, is that the regulations as currently passed by Parliament would say that our scheme goes live in August 16th, which is during parliamentary recess. The urgent matter is that we deal with that so that businesses are not having to launch a scheme this summer after we have committed to delaying that scheme. The other piece of it is the practical amendment to the regulations in terms of the amount of miniatures in terms of the online take-back in terms of all the things that we worked with industry for months to establish and that we know are part of a working scheme, for example, the changes to online take-back. We owe it to industry to follow through on our promise to deliver on what they worked in. Those are the two matters why we are bringing them in terms of fitting in an expedited process before recess, before that cut-off, because the August 16th is coming. That would have been very risky to be able to get that through Parliament, to make sure that we are not putting businesses in the position of having to launch DRS at August 16th. This was the smoothest process through that time. I realise that it is not ideal. Sorry, can you quantify risky? I do not quite understand that. Surely the Parliament set up to allow it to do a process to stop it now, even if the committee sat during recess and whatever the procedure is, could have been carried out before the 16th of August? I think that that would have allowed reduced scrutiny time, but I will pass over to Elsa for the detail. I think that we were trying to make sure that we complied with the parliamentary processes and brought the regulations forward that were already laid before Parliament and not having to then inconvenience the Parliament into various expedited processes. Is there a parliamentary process that would have allowed this? Presumably when we come back in September after recess, you will bring forward more regulations, or you will bring forward another vehicle to stop the scheme in March. My question is why could we have not bought that vehicle forward now? Because of the requirement, it would have had to been to remove the regulations that have been laid on May 17. The changes to the scheme to move to October were announced last week. We would have had to withdraw the regulations, change them and bring them back, which would have been through an expedited process, which would allow less scrutiny and would potentially run up against that recess break. Doing it this way, I agree, is frustrating to all of us, but it means that you have had time to scrutinise the normal amount of time to scrutinise the amendments, and it means that we avoid the cliff-edge problem over the summer. It is absolutely my intention to lay, as the convener suggests, amending regulations for October 2025 before recess, but those cannot be laid until this SSI has passed. You could have withdrawn this SSI. We could have withdrawn this SSI and modified it, but then the timeline for scrutiny would have been very much compressed, and we felt that it was important for the committee to be able to scrutinise those. I'm just asking what the scrutiny would be, because what you're saying surely is that nothing will happen now until October 2025. You're not going to continue to scrutinise something that's not going to happen, are we? We know from the UK's internal market act intervention that there may be more regulations that will need to come, both around whether the October 2025 date is deliverable but around these other matters, for example, the amount of the deposit that we may have to bring before Parliament. By bringing this SSI, or continuing with this SSI, which was, as a promised entry with these amendments, we then completely define the Scottish scheme and we avoid this cliff-edge, and we do so using the smoothest parliamentary process. I'm not sure I'd follow that, but I'm sure somebody does, Liam. I don't follow that, so I'll just press, if I may minister, because, first of all, on this date, because I'm deeply uncomfortable that we're about to pass, you hope, regulations that move the date of implementation to March 2024 when this committee knows that that is not what's going to happen. It feels to me like the committee has been asked to agree to something, to laws, which we know aren't competent, they're not going to come in. So my question becomes why aren't the regulations expressed to simply say they will not come into force on 16 August and they will come in on a date in the future or something, so we don't pin to a date which we know to be false? If I could just explain, so in terms of the parliamentary process for these regulations, so they're subject to the affirmative procedure, which means they cannot be made until Parliament has approved them. In terms of the drafting of the regulations, they must specify a coming into force date. We can't leave that as some blank date or a date to be specified in the future. There is no other way to specify the coming into force date apart from putting it in the regulations. So why put a date in March 2024 and not October 25? Well, so these regulations, as the minister has explained, were laid on the 17th of May before there was any knowledge of the UK's decision and the Scottish Government's plan was for implementation of DRS on 1 March 2024. The only way to change the date beyond 1 October 2025 would have been to withdraw that set of regulations and then to lay a further set of regulations, which would have required the scrutiny of the Parliament, so they would have gone back to the DPLRC for further consideration, then they would have come to this committee for further consideration. Because of the timescales that we have, we've only got three weeks left before recess, but that is a very difficult timescale to meet. But do standing orders prevent the consideration of regulations during a recess period? Well, I don't think they prevent the consideration. So it could have been considered during the recess period? Well, the Parliament would have to be recalled down to consider that. Otherwise, the parliamentary process, the days that are counted as part of the standing order days, they don't count recess dates unless standing orders were suspended. So the Parliament would have to agree to a different process. It's not within the Government's gift to change the process. That would have been— No, but it is in the Parliament's gift. Yes, the Parliament would have to agree to that. Minister, those regulations make other amendments, as you've pointed out, and I understand why. You talked earlier about the need for collaboration, the need for discussing changes to the scheme with the UK Government. So those changes that you're asking the committee to pass today, have those been discussed and agreed with the UK Government to ensure alignment in the collaborative way that you talked about earlier? Those changes are, of course, the UK Government is aware of them, but because the UK Government have not themselves put in place their regulations or their scheme, there has not been any co-development on those matters, those amendments have been developed with industry. We've been working with industry for months, for example with the hospitality industry, with small producers, to bring those changes to define Scotland's deposit return scheme, which I'll remind the member is a fully devolved matter. Those amendments together fully define Scotland's deposit return scheme, and I'll be discussing with Minister Powell how they want to develop their scheme going forward, but I very much hope that they will look at our complete set of regulations. The work that went into that with industry and take learning from that forward into their scheme. So just to be clear, those amendments haven't been discussed and agreed, that you're asking this committee to pass today, haven't been discussed with the UK Government, because you'll do that with the Minister tomorrow, but in fact, given the timescale that we've just heard and how tight we are on recess, you've been discussing those amendments for months with industry. Is that correct, Minister? It is not for the UK Government to agree matters that are devolved to this Scottish Parliament. That's not what I asked, Minister. I asked about the time frames. Was my reflection on your timescales correct? The question doesn't make sense from the member, because those amendments have been brought as a result of discussions with industry about Scotland's deposit return scheme, and we are amending Scotland's deposit return scheme, the regulations that were passed by this Scottish Parliament in 2020. We are not required to agree amendments to our own legislation with the UK Government. As we go forward to develop the scheme with the UK, an interoperable scheme, we will of course discuss what's going to be best for the whole UK. I think I may have caused confusion here, but I'm very happy just to clarify. What I was trying to do was to identify, before we go on to the actual regulations and the contents of the regulations, which we will do in the next agenda item, the explanation from the Minister of why there appears to be a somewhat clumsy approach, i.e., passing legislation, that enables a scheme that isn't going to go ahead in the format that is in the regulations. That's what I was trying to do. Now, I know that Mark wants to ask questions on the regulations, and I think Bob, you wanted to ask a question. I'm very happy to open it up to questions on the regulations if the Members feel that it would be helpful for the Minister to have her team round her and be able to answer the questions, because, in the next item, only the Minister can answer the questions. I want to be as fair as possible. Bob, I think that you were first, and then I'm going to come to Mark. I'm kidding your hands, convener, but we're halfway through a line of questioning pursued by Liam Kerr, which raises additional questions that I would like clarity on, which is why I would like to see it within this agenda item. Minister, I can only imagine the fake outrage that the Scottish Government was throwing the set of regulations brought in other ones and tried to bulldoze them through a DPLR committee and this committee all before recess. Some people in this room that are now criticising that we're putting these regulations through would have absolute outrage if the Government sought to bulldoze through other regulations, so I just leave that sitting there, but my substantive question would be, do you have a meeting with Rebecca Pau tomorrow? Can you confirm that the UK Government doesn't have a power of veto over individual statute instruments and regulations that the Scottish Government brings to this Parliament? That would be quite helpful, but I take it that you do take cognisance off what UK ministers say, so is it possible that following discussions with Rebecca Pau tomorrow, the final details of what is in a fresh statute instrument may change slightly depending on those discussions, because if they would, then it wouldn't make sense to withdraw these ones, bring in fresh ones and then bring in a third set further down the line. For myself, convener, I want to know a little bit more about that meeting, I suppose, tomorrow with Rebecca Pau, because it would be crazy to have three different sets of regulations going about, which I think that some of this committee might anticipate would happen. I am happy to discuss the meeting tomorrow and to provide, hopefully, some clarity on that point. The meeting with Minister of Power tomorrow is to take a baseline of where we are, the UK Government has imposed those conditions on us, what do they mean to do with them going forward, but the minister will absolutely not be able to answer the question as to what the deposit level will be at, she will not be able to answer the question as to what the labelling requirements will be, and she will not be able to answer the question about miniatures and sizing and so on, so she will not be in a position to answer any of our operational or detailed questions that might affect this. We are going forward with this SSI, partly because it was laid before the Interference in the Internal Market Act, but because it represents our commitments to industry as to what the deposit return scheme will look like. As you say, it is not for the UK Government to veto or agree any particular part of legislation that we pass with the Scottish Parliament, but from the meeting with the minister tomorrow, I will be able to present a developed Scottish system, the expertise of CSL, and what I hope is a working proposal going forward that they take on board our learning and CSL's experience as the best and smoothest way to launch their scheme, rather than them duplicating effort, coming up with something entirely different and then imposing it back on us. However, I do anticipate that we would have to bring yet another set of regulations at some point before 2025, if only to take glass out, but there may be others as well imposed on us. I am going to try and encourage members to stick to the actual content of the regulations now, if I can mark over to you and then over to Jackie afterwards. I will gladly do that convener gladly. Can I then turn to the specific amendments that have been put forward in the regulation today? Can the minister outline what those are and what the reaction from industry has been to those changes, given that many in the industry were calling for them? Yes, very happy to do that. The regulations as passed in 2020 by the Parliament were deliberately quite broad to allow industry to find a route through to compliance that would suit them. The amendments today cover five areas that have been the result of extensive work between ourselves and industry. The first is the requirement for online take-back. Online take-back is a really important part of the scheme in terms of equalities and people who are housebound or otherwise disabled and not able to get to a return point to be able to return their scheme articles. Originally, the regulations had required that anyone who sold any container implement an online take-back service. That was very difficult, for example, for small producers, say that you are a small ginger store who sells only 500 bottles a week or something, and how are you supposed to put in place an entire take-back scheme with vehicles to go and collect these items and so on? The obligation has been restricted to the largest grocery retailers who already have the infrastructure of vehicles and IT systems to handle this. That will make that both accessible but also not overburden some on small business. Another item is the low-volume products. That is specifically to support small producers but, in fact, applies to all producers. That is that items, runs of product of less than £5,000, will not incur a deposit and therefore will not have to meet the system requirements, which means that that removes 44 per cent of the smallest producers from the scheme altogether, but actually reduces less than 0.5 per cent of the materials from the scheme. It does not undermine the environmental benefits of the scheme but provides crucial support for small producers that we all agree is important. Another one is around the minimum container size, and that is for the little miniatures. There are some practical issues around tiny bottles and barcodes and how you make them recognisable by RVMs but, largely, this change is a simplification of the scheme, which helps producers again, but we think that it would only remove 0.2 per cent of the total scheme articles. So, again, significant support for business, not undermining the environmental aims of the scheme. The fourth item is on the hospitality retailers. Originally, in the regulations, as passed, anyone who sells any scheme articles would be required to apply to be a return point unless they were granted an exemption. We have widened that out specifically to the crest of hospitality retailers who sell more than 90 per cent of their items as a closed loop. I am sorry that that is very technical, but what that means is that they sell things to be consumed on a premises. So, for example, if you go to a restaurant and you buy a bottle of wine, you do not take it off the premises, so you consume it on the premises and leave. That is a closed loop. If you go to a premises and buy a can or a bottle of juice or drink and leave it, that is open loop. So, hospitality premises that are 90 per cent closed loop, so that is most restaurants, many night clubs, many bars, will not be required to automatically be return point. So, that removes a substantial amount. The rough estimate that I think I had from industry was about 60 per cent. You can correct me, Dave. Was it 60 per cent? So, that substantially removes hospitality venues from the scheme, which was their request. Again, we do not think that it interferes with this accessibility point, because the model in other countries, for example, is that people tend to return their bottles when they buy their groceries, whether that is at a small shop or at a large shop, and they do not think so much about taking their bottles back to a night club, for example. The final one is about the right to refuse scheme packaging in certain circumstances, and that is specifically around businesses that only sell some types of packaging and then having to handle types of packaging that they would not normally have to handle. That is a more technical one that matters to some businesses. Those are the substantial amendments to the operation that we are looking at today. Okay, and it would be useful to get a sense of what reaction from those businesses that would benefit from those amendments have been, and if there are calls for other amendments, beyond the larger issue of glass. So, these amendments were developed over several months with industry. This is what they were asking for, these five changes. So, we have done, as industry asked, and they were broadly welcomed by industry as helping to make the scheme workable, which is, of course, why we are very much—we want to get these passed and in regulations in Scotland so that we can demonstrate to the other nations of the UK a workable scheme that has industry support behind it. We do not intend to bring any more regulations to define the Scottish scheme or hadn't intended to, depending on how the Internal Market Act and the politics of the next couple of years play out. We may have to bring other amendments, because the UK may be imposing matters on us, but no, this now fully comprises the Scottish scheme. Okay, and I think you said earlier on that this is effectively now doorstep ready, the DRS in Scotland. So, when you're in discussions with Rebecca Power and other ministers, would you be presenting this as the scheme that effectively has been designed by industry itself? I think that's a really nice way to put it. As I say, the regulations initially were passed in 2020 were deliberately broad to allow industry to find its way, and that was the feedback from industry on the support that they would like to make the scheme work best for them, and we have gone and done what they asked us to do. Oh, it's not so much questions, convener. It's more clarity, if you don't mind, to try and get my head round this. We heard from Ailsa before that if we were to withdraw today's SSI to bring forward a new one because of the date, that would mean that we'd have to recall Parliament so that it wouldn't go live in August, is that correct? That was something that we, in planning this process and looking at what our options were after the disruption of last week, was looking at the option of working within the given parliamentary days, and this is the smoothest process to make sure the scrutiny happens and doesn't hit that cut-off within the given parliamentary days. So, if that did happen, what would happen to the scrutiny, you said earlier, that would go to the DPLR committee and then it would have to come back to us, so would we have a good level of scrutiny should Parliament be recalled? I can ask Ailsa to review the process again. In terms of the scrutiny, the Parliament, under the normal standing orders, has 40 days to scrutinise an affirmative instrument, so my understanding is that the first 20 days is for the DPLRC to consider the regulations and then they go to the subject committee. Normally the Government gives 54 days scrutiny, that allows the 40 days of committee scrutiny, plus time for the regulations to then be sent to the chamber for the plenary vote, so that whole process would have to be severely truncated and expedited by agreement of the Parliament to allow any regulations to be approved before the end of this parliamentary term. I mean, I don't know, I have to say, I'm not sure what the process would be then for asking for Parliament to have that scrutiny time during recess. Normally the counting days, the 40 days plus the 14 extra days that the Government gives, they stop at recess and the recess dates are not counted towards those scrutiny days, so there would have to have been an arrangement with the Parliament for how the scrutiny would work. I have to say, I don't know exactly how that would be agreed, but it's within the gift of the Parliament. Although, as the convener says, this mechanism is quite, is a bit clumsy to pass regulations that we know will need to be amended, it is the smoothest in terms of not having to recall Parliament or allow, but it's still to allow the full scrutiny process of not having an expedited process. As I say, I've committed to if this SSI passes, I will immediately bring another SSI before Parliament, which will set that date to October 2025, and that will have the normal amount of scrutiny, so not an accelerated process, because we will have missed, we will have passed this cliff edge of October 16th by the passing of the SSI that you're considering today. Yeah, and it probably proves that we've got quite a clunky, I think, was the description system, because you could have done it by other procedures if there was an act before it, but there isn't, so we're struggling a wee bit that the only way of doing this is to do it. I think that's by a made affirmative for those people that are interested in that. Is that there is a way of doing that, but we can't do that in this case, so it appears quite clunky. So on that note, thank you for the evidence, but we are going to move straight on now to agenda item 4, which is the formal consideration of motion S6M-09-033, calling on the committee to recommend approval of the deposit return scheme for Scotland amendment regulations 2023, and just to remind members that only the Minister and members of the committee may speak in this debate. So I'd ask the Minister if you'd like to speak to this and move the motion. That was a bang and a half. So if you'd like to speak to that, if you didn't hear me, and move this motion, Minister. Thank you, convener. We've covered the matter extensively, so I will go straight to moving the motion. Thank you very much, Minister, so you are formally moving the motion. I'd like to ask members if they would like to make any contribution. I have got Liam. Yes, just very briefly, and it is a contribution only, convener. I do understand the difficulty of the timing. I am deeply uncomfortable that we are, and I don't mean this in a pejorative way, but that the committee is almost being bounced into putting this through. I find it deeply unsatisfactory to pass something when we know it won't action next March, and I'm not entirely understanding why it can't be changed, and if that means this committee or this Parliament sitting during recess, I think that that's fine. There are more than 40 days between now and the 16th of August. It is better to do things right rather than quickly. However, I appreciate we don't have that choice, so I don't anticipate convener voting against this. I anticipate voting for it for those reasons. An observation on the substantive amendments that we looked at, Minister, whilst they may be the right way to go, and I listened to Mark Ruskell's line of questioning, I find it difficult to understand why, given what we heard in the session earlier, this hasn't been at least discussed with the UK Government to say that events of the last few weeks have caused changes to the Scottish scheme. Why aren't we trying to make sure that there's alignment there so that there won't be any further changes? That's just an observation, and I appreciate the situation that the Minister has set out, and so for that reason, convener, I'm likely to vote for these regulations. Mark Ruskell, I think that you wanted to come in. Yes, thanks very much, convener. I very much welcome the SSI, which of course was lodged some time ago. I think that what it represents really is the fact that the Minister and officials have listened to business over time, that there has been active engagement with business, and that, as a result of that, business has helped to shape the scheme. I think that we're probably as close to a consensus on what a model DRS scheme for Scotland and, potentially, for the rest of the UK could look like. I think that inevitably there will always be those sectors, particularly those that favour glass and the glass industry, that will always want to see glass excluded from any scheme, and there will be those who will try and seek a commercial advantage over other businesses by doing that. In terms of getting a consensus, getting a scheme together that can operate in Scotland and could be adopted across the rest of the UK, that really captures that consensus and is actually being shaped by business, I think that this is the scheme. I think that the Government has worked long enough on this, and there's been so much consultation and so much engagement from business that we now have the model, and this is really the model that should set now the direction for the rest of the UK and for interoperability. I'm actually pretty proud of where we've got to with this as a Parliament, and I'm proud of what the Government's achieved as well, and I think we'll be ready to go as soon as we're able to on this. Very briefly, convener, I think that Mr Ruskell has addressed some of the comments that I'd wanted to make. I think that somewhere during this very robust scrutiny session that we've had, a little bit of the progress made in working with businesses has been lost amongst the process of it all, so I think that Mr Ruskell has put that on record pretty well. Also, I would just reflect that having listened to colleagues asking lots of questions, this would benefit from more scrutiny, not less, so the idea of a fresh set of regulations and a statute instrument coming back to be scrutinised in September, I think is no bad thing for this committee and for this Parliament, and supporting this statute instrument is the way to secure that, and also the way to make sure that we don't have a scheme starting in August that is simply not possible. I would also note, based on what Mr Kerr has said, who I thought tried to be a little bit more conciliatory in his remarks there, that there has been three years of opportunity for the UK Government to raise these concerns and they haven't done it until the last few weeks, and that shouldn't be lost to find out why they were in this situation, and I think that that needs to be put on the record yet again. The requirement for a further set of regulations and statute instruments lies squarely at the door of the UK Government, I think it has to be said, but that said, this is a perfectly competent statute instrument that I think we have to pass here this morning, and if I'm invited back in September, convener, to scrutinise the new set of statute instruments, I will look forward to that. Fear the person who you are substituting for may not allow you to take her place. I may be misjudged, and I don't want to put words in her mouth, but minister, I have a question for you to start with, if I may, before I make a comment, is when do you perceive that you would lay the regulations to replace or the statutory instrument to replace this statutory instrument? I mean, not to replace it, it will then just amend the date, it wouldn't have any other meant yet. So I hope to be able to do that before recess, that would be my intention to be able to do that before recess. There is a requirement that this statutory instrument you're considering pass through Parliament before I can lay that one, so I'm not the Minister for Parliamentary Business and I'm not in charge of that timetable, but that is the intention. You and I well know that it's just a quick vote at decision time on this, and so it's a question of putting it in. So the regulation that you bring in to update this regulation will just be a question of the date, there will be nothing else in it. Correct. So that needs a lot more scrutiny, does it? In terms of the process that it must go through, it has to go through the same process as every other SSI. It is just a date. The parliamentary process is the process and we need to make sure that that is followed in terms of the number of scrutiny days and so forth is set out, that isn't something I intended to challenge. So there will be no other regulations in that, a statutory instrument apart from the date. Yeah, sorry, there's some consequential date changes around registration, but it will be around that date. There wouldn't be any more definition to the scheme in terms of the materials included in the scheme and so on. It is specifically to get that date right. There are some consequential changes in terms of the registration date. So the registration date, for example, for August 16 required in March, so if we're moving to August 2025, there would be other consequential dates associated with that, but that would be the full matter. Okay, can I just say then, and I don't want to labour this point, but it seems a very clunky process that we have got to get us where we are today. I find myself in a position where to vote against this statutory instrument would put unbearable strains on businesses, but I do believe that there would have been a way to resolve this before Parliament went into recess, if there was the will to do so. And therefore, I find it particularly difficult to consider something that and approve something that I know as soon as I've approved it or in the process of approving it is invalid in doing so. So that's my position on it. And I would ask the minister, unless there's anyone else around the table, I'm not seeing any comments, wants to make a closing statement. You could, of course, wave that if you'd like to and we can move directly on to the decision, but it is up to you, minister. No, I'm happy for you to move to the decision, convener. Thank you. So the question is to the committee that motion S6M-09033 in the name of Lorna Slater be approved. Are we all agreed? Agreed. We are agreed. Then the committee will report on the outcome of this instrument in due course. And I invite the committee to delegate authority, me as convener, to finalise the report for publication. It's a committee happy about that. Thank you. I thank you minister and your officials for the time that you've given to us this morning. And I briefly suspend the meeting. I would ask committee members to be back here at 11.40 please. I suspend the meeting. Thank you and welcome back. Our next item of consideration is a negative instrument, the packaging waste data reporting Scotland amendment regulations 2023. The instrument is laid under the negative procedure, which means the provisions will come into force unless the parliament agrees to a motion to annul them. No motions to annul have been laid. Do members have comments on the instrument? No one has any comments. Sorry, did you? Sorry, Mr Stumber. Okay, thank you very much. I invite committee to agree that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument. Are we agreed? Thank you. That concludes our public meeting and I now move into private session.