 The first item of business today is a statement by Roseanna Cunningham on a deposit return scheme for Scotland. Before I move on to that, can I say that it appears that some significant details of the scheme have been reported in the press before today's announcement? I would refer to the good practice guidance and announcements by the Scottish Government about major policy announcements coming in the first instance, always to the Parliament and I would urge the Government to have regard to that guidance. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Roseanna Cunningham for 10 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I say that the leak is disappointing because I feel that it somewhat steals my own thunder. It is not something that the Government would wish to have seen and I am absolutely unclear as to how that happened. We are proud to be leading the way across the UK with our plans for a deposit return scheme for single-use drinks containers. Last summer's extensive consultation reinforced the view that an appropriately targeted DRS would help to improve the environment and change people's attitudes to recycling and littering. The scheme is central to our ambition to build a more circular economy, where materials are kept in high-value use for as long as possible. As the chamber will be aware, we have embraced the recent report from the Committee on Climate Change and have acted with amendments to our bill. Interventions such as DRS will be central to our efforts to tackle climate change. The Scottish Government has been working closely with Zero Waste Scotland, SIPA and others to build on the outputs of the DRS consultation. We have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that we learn the lessons of successful schemes. At the same time, we have been keen to avoid simply lifting and laying a model from elsewhere. We are clear that we need a DRS that properly reflects the needs of Scotland. I am pleased to be able to share the outputs of that activity and to outline the shape of the ambitious scheme that we will deliver. Further detail on today's proposals will be available in supporting documents that will be published after this statement. The recent consultation signalled strong support for a DRS covering a wide range of materials and so I intend to implement a system covering metal cans, PET, the most common form of plastic drinks containers and glass. I have looked carefully at the arguments for and against glass. After a detailed analysis of how costs match up with benefits, including increased recycling rates, reductions in carbon emissions and reductions in glass litter, my conclusion is that the inclusion of glass is justified. There is also strong public support for including glass, as shown by the Marine Conservation Society's recent polling, in which 85 per cent of participants indicated support for its inclusion. I know that some producers, retailers and the glass industry have concerns about its inclusion. I want to make it clear today that I am committed to working with them to implement the scheme in a way that addresses those concerns. However, if we are to include glass, it must be done from the outset. The infrastructure requirements for this material mean that it would be hugely complex and expensive to add it later. I have chosen, at this stage, not to include HDPE plastic within the scope of the scheme. HDPE is primarily used for packaging fresh milk, and there are significant concerns, for example, about contamination of other materials and order. Unlike glass, it would be possible to include this material in DRS at a later stage if those concerns can be overcome. DRS needs to be as convenient as possible for the public. People must be able to easily access return points. It would not be acceptable for certain groups, for example those living in our more rural and remote communities or those on low incomes, to be penalised because they cannot return containers. It is in mind that I intend to implement a return to retail model, whereby all businesses who sell drinks will be required to accept returns. That change will be visible to us all, including here in Parliament, in the Scottish Government and in workplaces across the country, reinforcing the fact that we all have a role to play in helping our environment. We recognise that consideration must be given to the operation of DRS in smaller retail settings. Retailers will be given flexibility in how they enable returns through different sizes of reverse vending machines or manual over-the-counter take-back arrangements. We will explore with retailers how the financing of reverse vending machines can be supported and are committed to trialling different return storage and collection solutions in preparation for the scheme's roll-out. I have carefully considered the calls by some to introduce automatic exemptions for retailers below a certain size and I have significant reservations about doing so. Modelling shows that even a modest level of automatic exemption would quickly hinder the scheme's accessibility. An exemption for retailers, with a floor space of up to 280 metres square as has been proposed by some, would result in only 17 per cent of retailers accepting returns. I do not believe that that would be workable. Of course, there will be occasions where there are numerous retailers operating very close together. Where this is the case, we should build in the flexibility to accommodate exemptions. I also believe that there should be the flexibility to supplement the role of retailers through the operation of additional return points. It could help to drive additional footfall for community initiatives and could add particular value in our more rural and remote communities that are less well served by shops. By taking this approach, we will maximise opportunities for the public to reclaim their deposits. I have listened carefully to the hospitality industry regarding how DRSs should operate on premises such as pubs and restaurants, where drinks are sold for consumption on-site. I can confirm that, in such cases, the premises will pay the deposit but will have the choice as to whether to pass it on to the consumer. International evidence suggests that the value of the deposit within a DRS is key to participation. The consultation indicated strong support for a deposit of 15p or more and our analysis suggests that a deposit of around this level would support a strong return rate. Evidence from international models also indicates that the ease of consumer understanding and proofing against inflation are important factors. I am therefore proposing a deposit level of 20p. With up to £1.7 billion containers and many millions of pounds passing through our DRSs, it will be important for businesses and the public to have confidence in its operation. We have looked at examples of effective schemes elsewhere. It is clear that privately operated systems can often deliver the right performance outcomes. In practice, that involves producers and retailers establishing a not-for-profit company for the specific purpose of running the scheme. I favour such a model. DRSs is a form of producer responsibility and so intuitively it makes sense that industry shoulders the responsibility for its operation. I believe that, with the proper regulation, that will work well for Scotland. In line with other schemes, I see no reason why we cannot recycle 90 per cent or more of our drinks containers through DRSs. That is far in excess of current recycling rates and I intend to reflect that aspiration in the regulations that will establish the scheme. Clearly, that will mean fewer containers being collected through curbside collections. We will work with local government to ensure that DRSs complements their collections, which will still have a critical role to play. Those collections will, in future, be supported through reformed packaging producer responsibility arrangements, which are currently being consulted on across the UK. The DRS regulations will be subject to superaffirmative procedure. There will be ample opportunity to review and comment on our proposals before the secondary legislation is laid and during its passage through Parliament. I would encourage everyone to take that opportunity and continue the high levels of engagement that have benefited us to date. It is my intention to commence the superaffirmative procedure this summer. There is clearly much to do to successfully translate the scheme design into a fully operational service. The contribution of industry will be central to its success. We have set up an implementation advisory group to work with those sectors with a direct stake in the scheme's operation. Members include the British Soft Drinks Association, the Scottish Retail Consortium, the Scottish Beer and Pub Association and a number of others. That group will meet regularly to discuss implementation. I acknowledge that our plans are ambitious. Although I make no apology for that, I also do not underestimate the scale of the task. I look forward to working with partners to plan next steps. My overall aim is to deliver the scheme in the current parliamentary term. I remain very open to working with the other UK Administrations, which are currently consulting on DRS. However, that must be on the basis that their ambition matches our own. Our climate change commitments mean that it is simply not an option for us to wait in the hope that others will follow the example that we are now setting. That said, I am optimistic that the bold approach that we are taking here in Scotland will provide a blueprint for future action across the UK. Today's announcement marks an important milestone for DRS and our wider circular economy ambitions. I look forward to working with parliamentarians across the chamber as we progress this work in the weeks and months ahead. That concludes the minister's statement. I will now move on to questions. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for that. We have a load of questions, so if people are succinct in questions and answers, I think that we can get through them all. I call Moris Golden. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of the statement. A deposit return scheme can be a valuable tool in increasing recycling rates, but it is commonly used in advance of curbside recycling infrastructure roll-out. Never the less I recognise that the SNP Government has been working on the scheme for over a decade, so I expect the smoothest possible roll-out. Our expectations of the scheme would be as follows—plastic recycling plant and DRS vending machines to be built here in Scotland, local authorities to be compensated on current and future revenue streams as well as local authorities receiving technical support regarding any rerouting of collections, an incentive scheme to be rolled out to allow smaller businesses, a mechanism to attract more customers and exemptions for smallest businesses, perhaps only with respect to glass, a procurement framework to be set up to allow businesses to buy vending machines at a competitive price, health and safety training for glass focused on smaller businesses and a full behaviour change analysis engagement of the scheme as part of monitoring and evaluation. The cabinet secretary may wish to reflect on those points, but can Parliament be informed how much extra the inclusion of glass has added to the total cost of the scheme? Maurice Golden has raised quite a lot of issues and he will be happy to know that the document that will be available to him at the end of this statement, which could not be published before because it would have given away the scheme design, is a 150-page full business case, a stage 1 business case. I feel that it is likely to have the level of detail that will have even Maurice Golden's heart beating strongly. I know that he is somebody who is very keen on seeing that detail. We have obviously considered a number of the issues that the member raises. Those are key issues and I refer to some of them in my statement. One of the reasons why we have the Implementation Advisory Group is to continue to have that conversation. There will be another business case stage 2, which will be published a little later in the process. All the things that the member is raising here will be considerations that will be taken on board. That includes glass and the issues around glass. As the member may have, when I spoke in my statement, I realised that glass was a slightly more arguable case. I think that people would have expected that the plastic and aluminium glass was a little bit more—had to think a bit more about that one. On balance, we decided that it was a better thing to do at this point because you cannot retrofit it in, and that fundamentally was going to be the major problem. I hope to be able to engage with Maurice Golden on a lot of the detail that I know that he is interested in. Claudia Beamish I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of the statement. Scottish Labour welcomes this robust DRS model and recognises the campaigns by the Marine Conservation Society and have you got the bottle. I wish to declare that I visited Norway with that group last summer. I agree that ambition must not be held up by the UK Government, but compatibility with the UK will be important for businesses and the public. What contact has the cabinet secretary had with the UK counterparts to ensure the necessary synergy? Having seen a collection station in Oslo, I asked the cabinet secretary what actions can be taken by the Scottish Government to ensure that such stations are ready to receive the range of materials and what support has been given to new opportunities for remanufacturing, which is so important for our circular economy and for our climate change targets. Roseanna Cunningham Those latter points are important and I think that they pick up on some of the things that Maurice Golden was referring to as well. One of the reasons why we want the industry to be in the driving seat of running this is because they themselves, from a very early point, will see the need and the advantage for a lot of this. I think that it is the case that in Scotland we have not grown some of the recycling opportunities that might have been up until now. That will provide the volume of materials to make that really happen. That is one of the things that we will be continuing to talk about and I will expect the committee to be interested in that. The member raised the question of the relationship with the rest of the UK. She may be reassured that I have already been involved in two different meetings with my counterparts out of the border to raise coffee to discuss some of the issues around deposit return. They are well aware that we were a couple of years ahead of them in terms of what we were doing. I would hope that, by taking the position that we have taken today, that Michael Gove and Theresa Coffey will consider that they may be able to use some of the work and some of the experience—indeed, the business case that we are publishing—to help to drive faster what they are intending to do. I have 12 people who wish to ask questions, so I would reiterate that being succinct would be useful. Gillian Martin, followed by John Scott. I note the cabinet secretary's comments on the return to retail model. I would like to ask how small retailers will be supported to play their part in delivering the scheme, but I put a particular emphasis on my question on rural villages and how rural people can have access to DRS machines. The intention is for DRS to be cost-neutral for retailers who will be reimbursed through a per-container handling fee, making participation for them as easy as possible. We intend to explore directly with retailers how the financing of reverse vending machines can be supported. That may be one of the things that I missed from Maurice Golden's list of points. Although some retailers will choose to operate a reverse vending machine, we recognise that that will not always be practical, and I think that the member is probably referring to that. The scheme will therefore allow for manual over-the-counter take-back, where that suits retailers. Finally, our decision not to include automatic exemptions for retailers will help us to ensure maximum coverage in remote and rural communities across the country. That is a really important part of that. The vast majority of people have to be able to have direct access to the ability to get that deposit back, otherwise it will not work. John Scott, followed by Alex Rowley. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the scheme will be compatible with any future scheme developed in the rest of the United Kingdom and will any additional recycling plant and infrastructure required be built in Scotland, preferably Ayrshire? John Scott is an old friend of mine, but he somewhat overstates my abilities to be able to see into that crystal ball. What I am saying today is that we are pressing ahead with this with a very great deal of detail. I know that the UK Government is seriously considering a deposit return scheme potentially to roll out through England and Wales. I cannot say what decisions it will come to when it comes to making decisions, but by the time it is in the position of making that decision, we will be well down the road to having one up and running. I would hope that it will have regard to what we have in place, and I suspect that everybody from producers and retailers and all the rest of it are likely to pressure them to introduce the same system as here. Alex Rowley, followed by Angus Macdonald. I would also like to welcome the announcement, Presiding Officer. In the most modern deposit return schemes, the operator provides an app as an option for retailers so that they can request efficient collections and another app as an option for the public so that they can reclaim their money directly or donate their money to charity. Will the Scottish deposit system include options of this sort of looking at technology? That would be one of the issues that would be discussed by the implementation advisory group. I think that it is a very good idea. We see apps being used now across the board for all sorts of things like paying parking and all the rest of it, and I see absolutely no reason why we cannot use modern technology in that way. I will ensure that the advisory group, which meets later this month, has that in front of them as a possible ad addition to what they might be thinking about. Angus Macdonald, followed by Mike Ruskell. I, too, should refer members to my register of interests at the invitation of Have You Got the Bottle. I joined a cross-party visit to Oslo to see the Norwegian system in operation. The cabinet secretary will be aware of my strong support for DRS since first seeing it in operation in Norway in the mid-80s, and my keen interest in seeing DRS rolled out in Scotland, so I am delighted by today's announcement. The cabinet secretary, however, said in her statement that she is aware of concerns by some retailers and producers, as well as the glass industry itself regarding the inclusion of glass bottles in the scheme. Can she give those with concerns and this chamber an assurance that zero waste Scotland will do everything that it can to engage with and assist any retailers or producers who continue to have concerns over the period that the scheme is being implemented? We are absolutely committed to continuing the engagement that we have already had with retailers as part of the development of the scheme. As part of that, we intend to work with them to test different return storage and collection arrangements in the coming months. The critical role of retailers has also reflected in the membership of the Implementation Advisory Group, which I have already spoken about, which includes representatives from the Scottish Retail Consortium, the Scottish Grosses Federation, the Federation of Small Businesses and the National Federation of Retail News Agents. It is my intention to bring forward secondary legislation to establish the scheme later this year. That will provide another important opportunity for retailers to engage with Parliament on our plans for DRS. Mark Ruskell, followed by Gordon MacDonald. Thank you. I also refer members to my register of interests and the very successful study visit that a number of us undertook to Oslo last year. I add the Scottish Greens that we warmly welcome the wide-ranging deposit return scheme that really takes the lead in the UK. The cabinet secretary also visited Oslo in preparation for the scheme last year, where hotels, restaurants and catering trade that collect empties on behalf of the system are paid the same handling fee as retailers who do the same work. Can the minister confirm that that will be the case for Scotland's hospitality trade? As far as I understand it, hospitality trade is not going to be required to deal with the deposit return system with the customer. They will be the customer in that sense. Whether or not we then think about them in terms of the handling fee, can I undertake to get back to Mark Ruskell on that level of detail? I am not entirely certain that I would understand that that was the case, but I would not want to say that it is not either and to mislead him. Gordon MacDonald, followed by Liam McArthur. I also refer members to my register of interests as I am the convener of the CPG on independent convenience stores. The cabinet secretary will be aware that three members of the Scottish Grocer's Federation have been trialling a reverse vending machine, including the Oxgang's premier store in my constituency. Over 36,000 plastic bottles in aluminium cans have been collected in two months, with 40 per cent of people donating the deposit to a local charity. However, those machines, with a smaller footprint, cannot accommodate the collection of glass. Can the cabinet secretary clarify how she expects the convenience store sector that, in most cases, has limited floor space, how they are expected to accommodate the storage of glass? Of course, that was one of the issues that we had to think about in terms of whether we included glass or not, and it is precisely those smaller machines that do not take back glass that would, if that was what was rolled out in a scheme, make it almost impossible in future years to add glass in. So, yes, indeed, that trial showed you that once you were set up on that basis, glass was not really going to be a possibility in the future. Retailers will have the flexibility to accept returns either through machines or manually over the counter if that better meets their needs. We are committed, as I indicated earlier, to testing different return storage and collection arrangements in preparation for the scheme's implementation. Where businesses choose to use RVMs, they will have flexibility over the type of machines that they operate, subject to some basic technical criteria being met. There is not going to be a mandated RVM model. Liam McArthur, followed by Alasdair Allan. I declare an interest as a member of that cross-party delegation to Oslo. As a member of the party, it is committed to DRS since 2012. I warmly welcome the commitment and, indeed, much of the content of the cabinet secretary's statement. Can she confirm perhaps that those proposals will be island proofed so that the accessibility and affordability to residents and businesses in island communities is properly taken account of? Given the strong evidence from Norway about the environmental and economic benefits of excluding glass and allowing other less environmentally impactful materials to be used, can she confirm that she is open to further debate about the inclusion of glass? I think that that is enough, Mr McArthur. Those are two questions already. I will catch up with Liam McArthur separately on some of the wider issues. I can absolutely reassure him that the comments that I am making about remote and rural premises are basically to include island premises. I know that there is a very real issue. It has been raised by my colleague Mike Russell as well in respect of GIA. I want to reassure Liam McArthur that that will absolutely be something that we take on board. There are different ways to manage that. Norway, too, has remote and rural areas and islands. There are plenty of examples internationally of that particular issue being resolved. I do not have any concerns that that will not happen in Scotland. There are some details that I can share with him, but I would not have time. The questions have been really getting very long again. I have five left. We are not going to get everybody in. I will do my best. Alison Allan is followed by Finlay Carson. On the issue of rural and remote and island communities, can I ask specifically whether one way around some of the problems that a number of members have raised would be if there were communal return points set up at other institutions than shops, perhaps schools and community centres? It is exactly something that we envisage as a possibility. The scheme design does allow for community-led return points to be established. Those could be provided by, for example, a local authority or even a third sector provider. We will encourage the public to make the best use of local services across the country. Finlay Carson, followed by James Kelly. I declare an interest as part of the cross-party group that visited Norway's CDDRS scheme. The proposed flat rate of 20p deposit does not take into consideration the cost of recovery or how sustainable each material is. Can you set out how the scheme will encourage producers to switch to a more recyclable and lower-carbon packaging? The member should be aware that there are a number of initiatives going on. His own Government at Westminster has already introduced a kind of plastic tax that is coming at it from the direction of the producer. There are a number of things happening in the UK as a whole, as well as what we are announcing today in Scotland that do deal with some of the issues that he has just raised. If he were to question Michael Gove, he would get a fairly robust answer on the plastic tax that has been introduced at a UK-wide level. I am happy to talk to Finlay Carson more about the 20p. From our perspective, we were thinking about the impact on the customer, the need for it to be a straightforward, simple, understandable deposit, but that they would still want to reclaim. James Kelly, followed by Kenneth Gibson. I recently visited the family shopper in Blantyre where the proceeds from the reverse bending machine, some of which were returned to the community. Can the cabinet secretary outline how the scheme that she has outlined today can incentivise community involvement? Roseanna Cunningham. There is nothing in our scheme design that would make that impossible. All of that is, I expect, one of the things that people will want to look at. I know that some, and I am not quite sure who it was that talked about that happening. I think that it was Alec Rowley who talked about a similar kind of thing happening elsewhere. Those who are administrating the schemes will perhaps understand that, but that will be a matter entirely for each customer to make that decision. I would anticipate that, in some cases, that will continue to happen, in other cases not. Kenneth Gibson. Can the cabinet secretary provide assurance that return accessibility, for example, for those without cars, will be a key consideration in relation to implementation so that people can make returns with ease? I am now wondering whether I should have also declared that I have been to Norway to look at the system. All our defence, those of us who have been there, is an astonishing thing to look at and understand. It clears away a lot of the concerns that people have about deposit return systems. In response to Kenny Gibson, we are committed to working with retailers to test different return storage and collection arrangements in the coming months. In addition, we will look at different options for retailers to access support, to acquire reverse vending machines where they choose to operate automated returns. Those considerations will be taken forward by the implementation advisory group that I have already mentioned. That concludes questions on the minister's statement. Apologies to Maurice Corry for not being able to call him.