 Y Llyfrgell yn ei bod yn gwneud yn y parlymyn yw'r cyffredinol yn y 7 yma yn y parlymyn, ac rwy'n fwy o'n ddweud yn ei bod yn gwybod. Mae'r gwaith ar y ddechrau'r cyfrifio, ac yn y llwy fawr, mae'r cyfrifio yn y cyfrifio yn y llwy fwy o'r cyfrifio gyrsfyrdd y Llyfrgell, y Llyfrgell yw'r cyfrifio'r gyrsfyrdd, yr economiaen, ac y bwyddiwyr yw'r cyfrifio'r cyfrifio. I rise today to offer Parliament the opportunity to state whether it shares the First Minister's confidence. Presiding Officer, I don't know Lornais later. There are only major interactions that have been in this chamber or in committee and I do not doubt for a minute her integrity. I do not doubt that she strives to do her best in a crucial and wide-ranging grief and I do not doubt her commitment to the deposit return scheme. All of those are not in question in my mind and nor do they fall to be considered today. My reason for bringing in this motion is that, since being appointed to this crucial ministerial role in autumn 2021, with particular responsibility for implementing Scotland's deposit return scheme, a scheme that all parties in this chamber supported and voted for and wished to see succeed. The minister has nevertheless struggled. I think that Kate Forbes said it best that the idea of the deposit return scheme is sound. It works well in other countries, but we cannot have a scheme that is well-intentioned but fails to achieve its aims and causes economic carnage in the process. Indeed not, but that failure, that economic carnage, is exactly what we are seeing happening. Whether it be Lornais later's first DRS postponement to August 2023, 18 months ago, and then the second postponement to October 2025, just this month, whether it be knowing for years that an exemption from the Internal Market Act was required yet only applying for it at the 11th hour, I will. I am grateful to the member for the intervention. The Conservatives continue to pursue this line that our request for an exemption from the IMA was only requested in March of this year. Ignoring the fact that, in February this year, sitting on Alistair Jack's desk was a document entitled Full and Final Proposal for the DRS, but also ignoring the fact that nowhere in the common frameworks does it mention the official request for exemption that Alistair Jack only began to speak about in March. I am wondering, could Liam Kerr point me towards the point in the common frameworks where it actually says that request mechanism exists? Liam Kerr, thank you. Of course, what we have just heard is the concession that, until February at the earliest, there was no final scheme on which to rule. Lornais later then went on to contradict the scheme administrator, Circularity Scotland, who insisted that DRS was nevertheless very much viable with Glass Excluded. She chose a further postponement. Did she take legal advice before doing so? Well, she refused to tell me in committee last week, and many have concluded that the answer is no. Whether it was disrespecting the NSET committee by promising to publish and send a gateway report, having failed to do so for months, ultimately producing only a summary, I asked what the Scottish Government had budgeted for DRS. Lornais later was confused on two occasions and told me what had been spent. Then sent me a letter saying that it was wrapped up in the zero-way Scotland budget, then quoted in that letter the wrong budget figures for the last three years. Whether it be knowing what would happen to the fines from the deposit return scheme, whether it be failing to warn Circularity Scotland bosses of the delay to the deposit return scheme in advance, then telling the committee, the net zero committee last week, that it was fully capitalised and there wasn't a problem with funding, albeit she also told the committee last week that she didn't know the nature of that funding, a statement that was reiterated earlier today, and all that just a week before today's bombshell that CSL has entered administration and around 60 people are looking for work. These are people who trusted the minister to speak for them in government, to command the respect of this house and answer truthfully and fully and take a collaborative approach, and businesses who have forked out hundreds of millions of pounds now face a scheme that's entirely up in the air and the position on compensation is entirely unclear. That's just the DRS side of the portfolio. Members will well remember Lorna Slater admitting to using a misleading renewable statistics, then not only failing to correct the record, but walking out of the chamber, as I made a point of order, to try and specifically highlight that. The private charter boat to visit rum rather than using the public ferry at a cost of £1,200 against less than £10, or having an empty limazine driven from the central belt to the northeast to pick her up and drive her back to Edinburgh. Indeed, she's used a chauffeur-driven car for 50 journeys in the last year, despite urging Scots to use public transport instead of private vehicles. And then she confessed in November 22 that she didn't know the difference between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, whilst believing— Excuse me, Mr Kerr. Members, can I ask that we treat one another with courtesy and respect? Excuse me, members, we may at times disagree with what is being said. That does not mean that we continue to have conversations or make sedentary contributions, Mr Kerr. Whilst she also believes that economic growth is wrong, leading Fergus Ewing to describe her as the enemy of Scotland's small businesses. These are significant errors of judgment in a portfolio that we all want—no, need—to succeed. In conclusion, I said at the start and I remind the chamber that this is not a question of Lornau Slater's integrity. It is not a question of whether one supports or opposes the Bute House agreement. It is not a question of whether a member agrees with the principle of a deposit return scheme. The only question that is relevant is whether a member believes that Lornau Slater retains their confidence to carry out the duties, responsibilities and functions of the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity. If she does, she will vote against my motion and signal that she believes that she retains their confidence. If she does not, she will vote for the motion that she does not have confidence in Lornau Slater to continue as the Minister. In order that Parliament has that opportunity to speak, I move the motion in my name. I now call on Humza Yousaf up to six minutes, First Minister. Lornau Slater and I are members of different parties and traditions, but we have chosen for the good of our country, the good of our climate, to find compromise and, indeed, to work together in the national interest. We have seen time and time again members on other sides of the chamber call for action that will tackle the climate emergency. Only, of course, to time and time again, shirk their responsibilities when difficult decisions need to be made. Lornau Slater does not do that. She does not shirk her responsibilities. Today, again, we see the Conservatives engage in tactics that are, let's be honest, aimed to deflect rather than to engage in the serious issues that our country faces. Today, we regrettably learn that a process is under way to appoint administrators to circularity Scotland. That is not a result of the Scottish Government's actions. It is not a result of Lornau Slater's actions. Responsibility lies solely and squarely with a Conservative UK Government, whose aim has been, from the very beginning, to sabotage this DRS scheme. Liam Kerr, in his contribution, said rightly that this Parliament voted for a deposit return scheme, that it voted for the regulations. The only small bit that he missed out, of course, was that he agreed to a scheme that included glass in that scheme. What do we have? A Conservative Administration, who at the 11th hour torpedoed Scotland's deposit return scheme made it impossible to progress actions taken in the absolute full knowledge of the consequences that this would have for Scottish businesses and, indeed, for the scheme and circularity Scotland. It is therefore extraordinary that the Scottish Conservatives are now tabling a vote of no confidence in the Minister for Green Skills, the circular economy and biodiversity, despite her unwavering commitment to our deposit return scheme, which Liam Kerr mentioned in his own contribution. It is hardly a surprise that the people of Scotland, quite frankly, have given the Tories a vote of no confidence in every election in the last 50 years. It is the Conservatives that have destroyed Scottish jobs and investment. It is the Tories who have undermined devolution at every single turn. It is the Conservatives that have brought this absurd motion, which is showing themselves to be completely unable to take responsibility for the catastrophic decisions of their UK counterparts. On DRS, which is the wrecking actions of Alistair Jag, that have put the scheme into jeopardy, was Lana Slater expected to be a mind reader? What will the deposit that the UK Government will compel us to charge? They have not told us what that deposit would be, and they expect alignment. They expect alignment when they have not told us what their registration fee will be. They expect alignment when they have not told us what has to be on the labels. Can any Conservative member tell us what will be in a UK deposit return scheme? I will give way to Jamie Halcro Johnston. I thank the First Minister for taking the intervention. Given that he has been in the meetings with businesses, he has seen the anger, the frustration. He knows the amount of money that has been spent by businesses with this scheme. He says that Lana Slater— Mr Halcro Johnston, please have silence while he puts his question. He said that Lana Slater takes responsibility for the role that she has played. Has she offered her resignation at any time? That was not worth the wait. Interestingly, Jamie Halcro Johnston, of course, was unable to give me a single answer to any of the questions that I posed. Of course, I have been in meetings with Lana Slater. I am proud to be in meetings with Lana Slater where she has engaged with hundreds of businesses. Of course, it is a number of iconic Scottish businesses and brands that have told us that the UK Government's interventions would put them at a competitive disadvantage. The Scottish Parliament was set up to serve the people in Scotland to encourage the collaboration between parties to deliver a better, fairer Scotland. I am proud to be part of a Government that embodies those values by bringing green ministers into the Scottish Government for the first time anywhere here or anywhere in Government in the UK. The question that I have is whether our Labour and Liberal Democrats are going to blindly follow the Conservative whip here and continue to give them protection, give them cover to undermine our democratic Parliament. I would hope not, but we will see very, very shortly. Instead of working to deliver a better Scotland, the Conservatives are doing what their colleagues in Westminster are telling them to do. By contrast, we have Lana Slater, who works every day to serve the people of Scotland. She is delivering great progress in efforts to tackle the nature emergency. She has been overseeing the development of our new biodiversity strategy, the establishment of our new 65 million nature restoration fund. Under Lana Slater's leadership on the circular economy, we have made one of the biggest investments in a generation to modernise recycling in Scotland through the 70 million recycling improvement fund. I will conclude by saying that the Tories have spent many months trying to undermine the operations of this Parliament. Hardly a surprise, of course, from the party who opposed the creation of this Parliament in the first place. It is no coincidence that they have pressed this stunt just a day after the House of Commons voted to press sanctions on Boris Johnson. Sanctions that the soon-to-be Lord Jack failed to support. Today, we know that it is meant to be a distraction from the work that this Government is undertaking, and the work that Lana Slater is undertaking to improve our nation. I encourage members to flatly reject this Conservative motion and stand up for this Scottish Parliament and Scotland's devolution. I am personally no stranger to motions of no confidence, having been the second minister to face a motion of no confidence. Until recently, there was another course of action that could have been taken. On 19 April, I wrote to the First Minister, outlining my concerns on the minister's ability to help to reset the Scottish Government's relationship with business and deliver a workable DRS that commanded the confidence of producers, industry and consumers. At that time, my solution was to remove ministerial responsibility for the DRS from Lana Slater, a solution that was sensible and would have helped to reset that relationship with business and get it as a scheme in place. I have still received no official reply, but I know that the First Minister's spokesperson said that the First Minister had full confidence in Lana Slater. I do accept that Lana Slater is not the only minister at fault. After all, it was the SNP's Rosanna Cunningham that pushed ahead with the legislation, and it has been championed heavily by First Ministers. But Lana Slater was in charge of the scheme and is responsible for the mess that we have now. This is difficult to listen to, but I have a short period. No, I won't. The minister failed to listen to businesses and stakeholders. Stakeholders such as GS1 UK and British Glass who told me that they were not given meetings with the minister despite repeated requests, and local businesses did not get meetings with the minister until MSPs asked for those meetings. Leaving local authorities in the dark also happened, not seeing them as potential partners, leaving them unable to prepare for the financial impact on their waste services. The Scottish Government failed to request a DRS-IMA exclusion request for six months, but last week at the net zero committee, Lana Slater washed her hands of all responsibility for the work of the CSL, despite questions from MSPs on viability. Can I ask that all the conversations that are going on over the aisles cease? She said that these were matters for industry, and in response to my topical question today, we learned that CSL has called in the administrators. I have stated previously that the Tory Government's actions are indefensible, but the Scottish Government must also be held accountable for the decisions that they have made. Last week, I discovered through an FOI that, in February this year, there were concerns over the viability of the August 23 go live date. The Scottish Government's director of environment, forestry, emailed officials and DEFRA saying, that, if it lingers beyond then, we run a very serious risk of compromising our 16th August go live date. In February, Lana Slater and Nicola Sturgeon toured TV and radio studios encouraging businesses to part with their cash and sign up for the scheme. In this chamber, at the end of February, the minister said that Scotland's deposit return scheme remains on course to launch on 16 August this year. While the minister painted a rosy picture for MSPs, her officials were warning that there was a very serious risk that the August 23 go live date wouldn't work. Businesses have invested hundreds of millions of pounds in a scheme that, in private, ministers knew was likely to be delayed, but Lana Slater and Nicola Sturgeon left Scottish businesses in the dark. Then we'd the delay till March next year. Scottish businesses have been under immense financial stress and pressures, and the First Minister himself mentioned that hundreds of millions of pounds of investment has been made, but it will not now be used. We've had months of chaos and grandstanding. This SNP Green Government has now failed to deliver on reuse, recycling, tackling litter, and somebody must be held accountable. Two months ago, I asked Humza Yousaf to take responsibility and remove Lana Slater of ministerial responsibility for the DRS. At the end of the day, it is not fair for workers to lose their jobs as a result of Government decisions and for Lana Slater not to lose hers. The motion of no confidence is the most shameless, cynical and desperate stunt by the Tories that I've seen yet in this chamber. On the very day that our leadership fell apart at Westminster, among the lies of Boris Johnson, they lodged this motion in a pathetic attempt to distract everyone from the dying days of their Government. The audacity of this motion, the absolute brass neck of it, begars belief, because it was the Tories who scuppered the DRS scheme. They forced the removal of glass, which the scheme was built around, and they set the conditions on its operation that are impossible to plan for. Now they're trying to gaslight Scotland into believing that it was somehow Lana Slater's fault all along. It is absurd, Presiding Officer. Now we can expect this kind of rank opportunism from the Tories, but what about Labour? I urge every Labour and Liberal Democrat MSP in this chamber to think long and hard about what they're voting for and who they're lining up with to do it. For this, it's not just an attack on Lana Slater, it's an attack on everyone who believes in devolution. If Sarah Boyack doesn't believe me, then listen to Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford, who recognises this power grab for exactly what it is. It is important to reflect on the qualities that good ministers have in abundance. The ability to show determination is important, but so is the ability to listen to understand how policy affects people in business and to respond with humility to concerns with improvements. Lana Slater has been tasked by this Parliament with bringing in one of the most ambitious DRS schemes in Europe. She spent the last 18 months listening, responding and revising the scheme. We now have a DRS that has been designed and shaped by business itself. It sets the model for the UK, and Lana Slater deserves huge credit for getting it to the point of launch only for the Tories to step in. Mr Ruskell, if you could just... I'm finding it very difficult to hear Mr Ruskell. I'd be grateful if we could hear Mr Ruskell. Please refrain from commenting. Mr Ruskell. We can contrast the actions of Lana Slater with the disgraceful actions of Alistair Jack. He was secretary of state, stood up in the House of Commons and completely misrepresented our deposit return scheme. Alistair Jack is fellow ministers who have acted with disdain for Scottish business, contempt for the years of work to design and invest in a DRS scheme for Scotland. They have not listened, they have not compromised and refuse even now to provide the certainty that business needs to go forward. Last night Jack wouldn't even vote to censure Boris Johnson for breaking almost every rule in the book. Instead he stood right with him to the shameful end if anyone should be resigning it is him. I'm proud of my minister, Lana Slater. She's not only brought DRS the point of launch, she's increased investment in nature, she's banned new waste incinerator, she's brought forward a circular economy bill to cut littering in waste and she's delivering Scotland's first new national park in a generation. She's a doer, a renewables engineer with real world experience in industry. We are lucky to have her and yet the disrespect and lack of courtesy even now, shown by some members in this chamber, has at times disgusted me. This Parliament needs more Lana Slater's and so does this Government, so get used to her because she's just getting started and has barely even begun to deliver the transformative agenda of the Greens in government. She's not going anywhere but forward tonight. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer, I take no pleasure in addressing the chamber on the matter before us. My party will vote for the motion tonight because we believe that the situation is just too far gone for Lana Slater to retain the confidence of this Parliament. That's because it is clear that business lost confidence in this minister a long time ago. There was immense frustration at her failure to answer basic questions about such an important scheme. There was immense frustration at a scheme design that was going to take Scottish produce off Scottish shelves. If it had been executed with care from the start, like in other European countries, it could have dramatically reduced waste and emissions. Instead, a pig's ear was made of a good idea and no amount of spin can hide that. Retailers and producers could have worked with a scheme that was coherent and didn't throw up barriers, but that's not what this SNP-Green Government put in front of them. Businesses have been caught in the middle, strung along, incurring costs and desperately struggling to navigate the uncertainty. Staff at Circularities Scotland, 60 people, have been left high and dry and facing immediate unemployment. For months, there has been cross-party pressure, including from Government-backed benches for the Scottish Government to amend the deposit return scheme. We offered good and reason debate about why delays and changes were necessary. However, if the Conservatives were serious about this vote today, they would have talked to other MSPs and parties beforehand. Instead, I believe that there is an element of deflection from the Conservatives here—an attempt to distract from their own problems in London. It is not a coincidence that there is no confidence vote on what Conservative MSPs were tweeting about last night while MPs backed the party gate report. In my party, we find this debate wholly depressing. The problem at the heart of all of this is that we have two Governments that are both incapable of owning up to their mistakes and that deflect blame, and for whom co-operation is a dirty word. Even if that is what hard—I'm sorry, I'm closing my remarks. I won't, I'm afraid. Even if that is what hard-pressed businesses are crying out for, business did lose confidence in Lorna Slater long ago, but they wouldn't have much good to say about either of our Governments, if we're honest. We are listening to them, and it is in that context that Scottish Liberal Democrats will be voting for this motion tonight. Thank you. I call on Rachel Hamilton to wind up. Today's vote of no confidence is not a matter that anyone would take lightly, but I want to make it clear to Ms Slater that this is not personal. This is about a collective failure in the Minister and indeed her Government's ability to deliver on the promises that they made to Scotland. Lorna Slater are green skills, the circular economy, and biodiversity minister who travelled to the Western Isles on a chartered catamaran at public expense, pleaded ignorance in the face of questioning around gene editing to the UK minister, a minister that failed to warn of the delays to DRS. The SNP knew what was on the horizon, Presiding Officer. Wildlife management, a fishing ban on 50 per cent of Scotland's seas, and they saw their scape goat for the inevitable calamities that would follow. She was thrown to the wolves, and the wolves have had a field day. Fergus Ewing described Ms Slater as the enemy of small businesses. With Ms Slater in post, Scotland's carbon emissions increased. Biodiversity has plumaced, with iconic species such as the Cappacali on the brink of extinction, and the minister has failed to make any progress on her plans to ban waste incineration. A King Midas, in reverse, everything that Ms Slater has touched has seemed to turn to screeching U-turns, lengthy delays and anything but gold. One thing I would say is that her failures do not need to be a bad thing. We can learn from these mistakes. We can begin to understand the value of proper consultation, of taking our time to get things right, of evidence-based policymaking that engages and listens to businesses and communities right throughout the process. Ideological further alone is never enough. It falls short of the expectations of the Scottish public, which they all have in us, and that, I feel, goes to the heart of what has gone wrong here. Rushing policies like the deposit return scheme and the fishing ban without taking the time to speak to those whose lives will be most affected by this comes at a cost. The cost is the trust of the people, and the cost is the trust in this Government's ability to do the right thing. We cannot ignore the minister's woeful record on maintaining the trust of the people in Scotland. As Blair Bowman said of her handling of DRS, we deserve better than this incompetence. Can the public continue to trust a minister who misled Parliament over Scotland's renewable energy statistics? Can business trust a minister who does not believe in the concept of economic growth? Can farmers trust a minister who repeatedly ignored formal and informal warnings over the need to allow the use of azulogs? Most importantly, can we trust a minister who promised to deliver a deposit return scheme that has put the firm in charge of the scheme under threat of bankruptcy, jeopardising jobs and investments? Presiding Officer, the answer, I'm afraid, is no. That concludes the debate on motion of no confidence. It's now time to move on to the next item of business, and there are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is that amendment 9594.2 in the name of Jamie Halcro Johnston, which seeks to amend motion 9594 in the name of Richard Lochhead on Scottish innovation strategy be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we'll move to vote, and there'll be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.