 Mae'r next item of business is topical questions in order to get in as many members as possible. Short and succinct questions and responses would be appreciated. At question number one, I call Neil Bibby. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it's had with Loganair and Highlands and Islands airports regarding the suspension of many flights from 17 March. Minister Jenny Gilruth. It is disappointing that Loganair has suspended these routes, although I am hopeful for a resolution before the 17 March. I met with the chair and managing director of Hyal on Saturday morning to stress the need for a timely resolution to the pay dispute and I asked for a new business case to be presented urgently to ministers. Following further discussions with unions yesterday morning, Hyal have developed further proposals which subject to Hyal's board agreement will be considered shortly by ministers. Transport Scotland officials have also discussed the situation with Loganair, which operates these routes on a commercial basis. Neil Bibby. The inescapable and scandalous fact is that the Scottish Government would still be sitting on its hands ignoring the damage to the islands if it had not been for the dramatic escalation threatened by Loganair. That's not how things should work. Cancer patients should not have to be subjected to fear in order to get a response from government. Islands should not be out of sight and out of mind until there is the risk of political embarrassment. Why has the transport minister suddenly discovered a role now when she repeatedly refused to become involved over the past five months, while Hyal said that her own hands were tied by the Scottish Government's pay policy? Mr Bibby has somewhat mischaracterised the situation. I meet with the unions across the transport sector on a regular basis and most recently I met, of course, with our airline unions at the end of January to discuss this very matter. So it's not true to say that I've not been engaged throughout this process and I do share Mr Bibby's concerns, which is exactly why when this decision was communicated to me on Friday, I sought the first available opportunity to speak directly to Hyal on Saturday morning. Clearly, there's a need for an urgent resolution to this dispute. I'm particularly concerned, for example, about any implications in relation to medical appointments, I think, as the member alluded to. That is a matter that I've asked Transport Scotland to raise directly with Loganair. Remember that this is important for members to recall. This is a decision by Loganair and Loganair's view is that action is short of a strike in the form of a work to rule, at least a short notice cancellation. For example, when staff absence can't be covered due to an overtime ban, Loganair have therefore taken the commercial decision in that respect because of the costs incurred by cancellations. That is not a matter in which Government ministers can become involved because the Scottish Government has no direct role in their provision. Many people in the Highlands and Islands believe that without Loganair's escalation, the minister would still be missing, there would be no extra money on the table and the indefinite prospect of cancellations and disruption would still be hanging over the islands with no end in sight. The minister cannot be unaware of the damage done to fragile island economies by the ferries debacle. Why for the past five months has she failed to prevent that damage being compounded by the on-going disruption to island air services? If extra money can be found now, why could it not have been found last week or last month to avoid the massive disruption that has already taken place and the hundreds of hospital appointments that have already been cancelled? I would refute Mr Bibby's characterisation of the situation. I meet our trade union partners on a regular basis. It was the 31st of January that I last met with our airline partners in relation to that very matter. I recognise that that dialogue was on-going. I will reiterate that this decision in relation to the cancellation of flights is not a decision that has been taken by Government ministers nor is it one that I have any input in as a Government minister. However, I met Hyal on Saturday morning at the earliest opportunity to explain the urgency to them directly. Hyal met with the unions yesterday to discuss this new draft proposal. That proposal is now being put to Hyal board and I expect an urgent update on the new proposal later today, but the focus here for Government ministers is absolutely on addressing the underlying issue, which, of course, is settling the Hyal pay dispute. I would be fair to say that my island constituents are horrified at Loganair's recent action. The impact on patients, including cancer patients alone, is almost unthinkable. Seriously ill people rely on this service to access treatment on the mainland. It is unclear how operations appointments and scans will be carried out otherwise. Loganair is a company that has directly and indirectly received substantial funding through the public purse and has now placed NHS Western Isles in an atrocious position. Did Loganair give the Government or island health boards any indication that such a disproportionate and draconian move by them was even being considered? I think that an answer to the member's question probably no. Loganair informed me of their decision as I outlined in my response to Mr Bibby on Friday morning to suspend the two routes that we are discussing today. Those services operate rather on a commercial basis, so it is not a matter of which Government ministers can become involved. I very much understand the performance on the Stornoway to Inverness Street. It has declined in recent times. Apparently that is because of reduction in travel by Western Isles Council staff, according to Loganair. That has been a major contributory factor, but also reduction in relation to NHS staff who use ferries for patient travel. I very much recognise the importance of those routes, particularly in relation to critical transfers, as the member has alluded to. I have asked my officials to speak directly to Loganair on that point. We now have a six-week suspension of Loganair flights. We have had a number of recent ferry failures and we have had a betrayal of the SNP's promise to dual the A9. Travel to and from the Highlands and Islands is in crisis due to this Government's failure to deliver adequate lifeline transport links. When will the SNP-Green Government get its act together and make island transport a top priority? I do not accept the characterisation that Mr Cameron has outlined today in relation to transport to our islands and our island communities. The vast majority of my time as Transport Minister has spent dealing with those matters directly. I recognise the disruption on the network in recent times. I am sure that I am about to answer a topical question further to that. However, it is important to reiterate that the way to resolve this situation with Hile is to get a resolution between the unions and between Hile. That is why I spent my morning on Saturday discussing with Hile how they were urgently going to put forward a new proposal for ministers to approve. I await that proposal and once I have it, we will be able to move forward and hopefully to unlock this dispute and provide greater reassurance to Mr Cameron's constituents. I was contacted earlier today by the family of a constituent to say that their mother is booked to fly to Shetland for a mastectomy operation later this month. Due to the suspension of air services between Orkney and Shetland, she now faces either an eight-hour ferry journey the day after her operation of falling almost a week away from home. Does the minister accept that those are lifeline air services and can she explain why Hile bosses were required to stick to a 5 per cent pay-offer after counterparts at CalMac were freed up to offer staff more? Will she now ensure that everything that is possible is done to bring to an end this long-running and damaging dispute? I understand the sentiment behind the member's question. Of course, the scenario in relation to CalMac is slightly different to other public sector bodies. However, I recognise the concern that Hile has raised today. In relation to the constituent and their experience, Hile has been more than happy to look at the specifics of that in detail. Clearly, those flights will operate on a commercial basis, and it is therefore very challenging for ministers to intervene in relation to their provision. Indeed, I raised this matter relatively with Transport Scotland over the course of the weekend and again today. Although I am not able to do that directly, I will make those representations to Loganair on behalf of Mr MacArthur and other members' constituents, because I do recognise the concern here. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the recent comments by the chief executive of CalMac, what action it is taking to prevent island residents being impacted by any reliability issues affecting their ferry services over the next two years. I have been clear to Parliament and indeed to the NSIC committee only last week that investment in new ferries to replace the existing fleet has been one of my key priorities as Transport Minister. We are delivering six new major vessels in the life of this Parliament, as well as the purchase of the MV Lafresa, which has been in service on the open to Craig Newroot since last summer. We are investing almost £700 million to support the improvement in the fleet, and that will also allow investment in the small vessel replacement programme. Although I recognise that those vessels will take time to deliver, we are also investing in resilience funding of at least £4 million per year to maintain the existing fleet to continue the search, and we continue the search for additional tonnage that could be chartered in the short term. Edward Mountain. I thank the minister for that answer. I am absolutely flabbergasted by that. I asked in the next two years, there is obviously a timescale problem, the same timescale problem that is the result of a 10-year ferry plan that has been left on the shelf and ignored. As far as the resilience plans for the £4 million, the last time I am aware that that was spent it was on improving fire extinguishers in a ferry that should have been a normal contract thing. At the moment, we have three First Ministers candidates, one who oversaw the ferries, one who signed off the payments to a turnaround director who failed to deliver, and one who appears to be content on building a doomsday thermometer for independence. If the transport minister is still in position after this leadership battle, will she give me an assurance that a spare ferry will either be rented or purchased to cover the next two years? I am more than happy to give Mr Mountain a confirmation in relation to that request. It is important to reiterate that when I appeared in front of Mr Mountain's committee only last week, I gave a very clear guarantee in relation to the search for on-going additional capacity on the network. I again want to put on the record, of course, that Seamull have made offers to purchase two second-hand major vessels, the MV Arrow and the MV Straitsman, which have unfortunately been unsuccessful. We will absolutely continue to look for the spare vessel that Mr Mountain has alluded to. I recognise very much so that there is a challenge in relation to the current fleet and the availability of services at the current time. Mr Mountain will recognise, too, that if there are on-going conversations in relation to securing an additional vessel, some of those conversations will be commercially sensitive, and I will not be able, as Minister, to share some of that detail in the chamber today. However, he has an assurance from me that we are absolutely seeking the additional tonnage that we so readily need in relation to the CalMac fleet. Thank you, Presiding Officer. For the last 16 years, this Government has been looking for a ferry to rent and it has not come across one. It might give it an indication that there are not ferries out there, and there should have been building them in a much quicker process than they have been doing for a moment. We have the MV Pencilina, which will hopefully come on to station to work, but that is just one extra ferry. My question is very pointedly. Will 802 be on station and operational by early 2024, as has been announced by this Government? It is important to respond to Mr Mountain in relation to hiring a renting of vessels. Of course, we have currently chartered the MV Arrow, which is covering the Uig outage at the current time, so it is not true to say that the Government has not considered those opportunities. Since May of 2021, the Government has bought an additional vessel, the MV Lockfreeza, which is operating on the open to craig new route. We have chartered the MV Arrow, as I alluded to, and we have made significant progress in relation to the construction of vessels 801 and 802. We have commissioned two new vessels for Ila. We have commissioned and confirmed the award of contracts for two new vessels for the Western Isles on the Little Mint route, supported by an additional £115 million of investment. We have progressed investment in key ports and harbors, including, of course, the completion of major works at Tarbot and Harris. Clearly, ministerial responsibility for Ferguson sits within a separate portfolio, but we remain absolutely committed to the completion of those vessels and supporting our island communities that rely on that type of vessel. As the minister knows, every cancelled sailing has impact our island communities. Clearly, secondhand tonnage has a key role to play here, as the minister has said. Semal recently told the net zero energy and transport committee that it had looked at substantial number of vessels. Can the minister therefore set out some of the particular challenges of specification and suitability when it comes to trying to acquire additional tonnage for our ferry routes? As the member knows, Semal has undertaken extensive searches and they continue, of course, to engage with ship brokers to look at vessels available worldwide that would be potential additions to the CalMac fleet. There are a wide range of factors that Semal needs to consider when they are looking at vessels, including the fit for the specific characteristics of our harbors, the condition of the vessels itself and, also, importantly, whether the vessel will be compatible with the requirements of the MCA. We were able, of course, to secure the MV Locfrigia, as I have alluded to, and as a result of those searches. As I confirmed to the committee last week, and I mentioned in my response to Mr Mountain, Semal also made bids to purchase the MV Arrow and the MV Straitsman regrettably, we were not able to secure those vessels, but that demonstrates our willingness to secure suitable new tonnage when it becomes available. Does the minister accept that the scale of the disruption being faced by islanders is a direct result of the Scottish Government's failure to adequately invest in new ferries since taking office? Bar, the overdue ferries being built at Fergusymru, there still does not seem to be a strategy. In total, Semal has examined 650 second-hand ships, most of which were found to be unsuitable. Will the Scottish Government commit to developing a long-term strategy to build capacity so that we can build and commission vessels here in Scotland? Is the strategy the first part of the draft island connectivity plan that was published in December of last year? I commend it to Ms Clark, she may want to look at that plan, but it sets out quite clearly the investment trajectory for this Government in relation to the future. Secondly, in relation to investment, if you look at overall investment from this Government since 2013-14 to 2022-23, there has been a steady increase in investment for our ferry fleet. It is simply not true to characterise it as a lack of investment from Scottish Government. I would refute that point from Ms Clark. The most important thing now for our island communities is that we deliver the ferries that are on order and improve the services that they receive. That is what I am focused on absolutely as Transport Minister. Fergusymru was facing being struck off because it had not filed its accounts on time. Is there, as has been reported, an £11 million shortfall between what the firm has been asking for and what the Government has agreed to give it? Will that impact on the building of ferries? I thank the member for that question. As notified to the Public Audit Committee in December of last year, the chief executive of Fergusymru expects the cost to complete both vessels to be £277 million, and Scottish Government officials are working closely with Fergusymru to review assumptions behind any revised costs and a schedule on how spend aligns to the vessel's delivery. To ask the Scottish Government in the light of reports that small shops in Scotland fear that they cannot survive because of the costs and impacts of the Scottish Government's deposit return scheme. What is its position on Security Scotland's confirmation on 1 March that retailers who use reverse vending machines would have to wait a full one month for payment for return bottles rather than the previously expected seven days? The retailer handling fee, which is the payment given to retailers to cover the costs of being a return point for Scotland's deposit return scheme, is the highest fee compared to other deposit return schemes around the world. The payment terms for all manual return point operators and hospitality venues will be seven days, and the payment terms for larger locations that install automatic return points will be longer. Security Scotland has a wide membership of producers, trade associations and retailers. Any business with concerns should contact Security Scotland for advice and support. For the past 18 months, Security Scotland has in all the documents on the website and in the presentations confirmed that payment to retailers using reverse vending machines would be made in seven days. Tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of pounds were invested on the basis of those commercial terms. Now that seven-day period has been extended to one month, a decision taken by Security Scotland with zero consultation with convenience stores, nor any explanation, nor any press release hidden away in page 23 of this document here. Three questions. First, does the minister agree that this decision by Security Scotland was taken in both an underhand and a sleek-it fashion? Second, was she consulted on that decision? And third, will she now order Security Scotland limited to rescind that decision? I will remind members at this point of the requirement that supplementary questions should be brief. To make the member aware of the context here, businesses operating return points in Scotland for Scotland's deposit return scheme have three options. They have the option if they do not wish to apply for a return point and they have a reasonable grounds for exemption, they can apply for an exemption and not act as a return point. Grounds for exemption may be on health and safety grounds, including a lack of storage or on geographic grounds, in the sense that they are close to other return points that exist. The second option that businesses have is to behave as a manual return point. This may be particularly suitable for small businesses exactly of the type that the member is concerned about. Convenience stores who operate manual return points who have a small volume of returns would find that probably most convenient to them, and those small businesses—exactly the businesses that the member is concerned about—will have payments based on seven days. Larger locations—for example, large supermarkets—have the capacity and need those automated vending machines to have that large capacity of return points. Their payment terms will be longer, but that is very unlikely to affect the small businesses that the member is so concerned about. I will remind members that this is an industry-led scheme, as was agreed across the chamber, and therefore the fees related to the scheme are a matter for industry to decide. Fergus Ewing? Businesses have been misled, duped and deceived by Circularity Scotland. There is irrefusible proof of that. The minister has completely failed for the second week running to answer relevant, pertinent and vital questions. Was she consulted by CSL on this unwarranted, unheralded and non-consulted change from changing seven-day payment to one-month payment, if, indeed, that is ever achieved under this scheme? Was she consulted, yes or no? Circularity Scotland is a private, non-profit company, and it is responsible for operating the scheme, including setting retailer handling fees. As set out in the DRS regulations, the Scottish Government is not involved in setting retailer handling fees. The fee was agreed after extensive knowledge gathering exercise, which included analysis and modelling by PWC, which was appointed by the scheme members. There are reports that Circularity Scotland dismissed the contributions of small producers as just, and I quote, dust in the wind. That serves to make small producers feel that the Scottish Government sees them as worthless. Many are already worried sick about the pig-headed planning of the scheme. However, I would like to ask the minister, was she consulted on retail handling fee changes, yes or no? I will give the same answer that I gave previously, which is, as set out in DRS regulations, the Scottish Government is... Minister, if you just give me a moment. Members, I am sure that we would all wish to be heard with courtesy and respect when we are speaking. Please afford the minister that courtesy. As set out in the DRS regulations, the Scottish Government is not involved in setting retailer handling fees. Just for clarification, can the minister say whether or not she was consulted on the changes in those handling fees, yes or no? Last week, we heard producers give a resounding vote of no confidence in the scheme, with less than 16 per cent registered. This week, it is retailers that are expressing concern. Pete Chamber of the Scottish Grocer's Federation said that the scheme was not fit for purpose, and the real risk of thousands of stores closing due to cash flow issues or significant loss of footfall. Is it not a dammer indictment of the minister's handling of the scheme that businesses, just five months before she says that it will be introduced, have not been given that clear blueprint on what should happen with the introduction of that scheme? The minister still will not answer straightforward questions that members are asking. Businesses have indeed been given an operational blueprint that was published by or shared out by Circularity Scotland last week. Schemes of this type are in successful operation all over the world. I will repeat what I have said earlier that the return handling fees are the highest in Scotland compared to other schemes around the world. Our businesses will do comparably better than other businesses around the world in comparable schemes. I will repeat again that Circularity Scotland is a private, non-profit company, and they are responsible for operating the scheme, including setting retailer handling fees. The Scottish Government is not involved in setting retailer handling fees. Mark Croskell. It is crucial that we continue to support small retailers to participate in the DRS scheme, because not only will they be paid through the handling fee, but it will also be an opportunity for local shops to increase footfall. That is why the Federation of Independent Retailers is calling for there to be no delay to the scheme. Can the minister outline what is being done to ensure that retailers are aware of both their obligations but also the opportunity that the scheme presents? I appreciate the member's question and his highlighting that those businesses who have invested in the scheme need the scheme to go live on August 16, which is what the Scottish Government has committed to. Circularity Scotland has already contacted all retailers who have signed up for updates with information on the return point registration and exemption process. Retailers who have not signed up for these updates are encouraged to do so via the Circularity Scotland website. Circularity Scotland will also be sending a direct mail to approximately 10,000 retailers across Scotland with information about retailer registration and the exemption process. Circularity Scotland has been in dialogue with more than 1,000 individuals at physical and online roadshows across Scotland. They are also conducting regular meetings with trade associations, representing retailers, wholesalers, drinks producers and hospitality. The minister says that this is industry-led, but I have, in my hand, a letter published on 6 March, in sign by Interallia, director of CBI Scotland, policy chair of FSB, chief executive of the Scottish Chamber of Commerce, chief executive of SCDI and many others, and hundreds of individuals who described DRS and its current form as reckless. Will the minister, at the very least, instruct Circularity Scotland to remove glass from the current recycling scheme? Scotland's deposit return scheme, which will go live in August this year, will collect glass. Glass is one of the main three materials used to make single-use containers and accounts for more than a quarter of all the containers that are included in our deposit return scheme. Of the 44 territories operating deposit return schemes in the world, only four of them do not include glass. Glass is one of the most common items to pollute our beaches and broken glass poses a hazard to the public and wildlife. It also poses a threat to local authority, private sector and voluntary cleanup crews. Including it in the DRS will help to reduce the amount of littered glass. The Scottish DRS business case suggests that including glass will save over 1.2 megatons of CO2 equivalent over 25 years and will significantly increase the quantity and quality of glass recycling. That concludes topical questions. In the interests of those who have just watched particularly that last topical question and listened to the answers, the so-called answers, that the minister has offered, can you clarify for the viewing audience and for all of us, does a minister who has asked questions in this Parliament have an obligation in any sense to address the question that they are being asked? Because what we have heard this afternoon is four occasions at least when a minister was asked a very direct question and on every occasion refused to give a clear answer. Surely that is not acceptable. Surely that is a disrespect to this Parliament. While standing orders are silent on this particular issue, it is of course a matter of courtesy and respect to all members that responses to questions address the questions that were put. There is also a requirement under the ministerial code on this issue.