 The next item of business is a debate on motion 7.975, in the name of Maurice Golden, on launching a successful deposit return scheme. I would invite all those members who would wish to speak in the debate, please press the request to speak buttons. I call on Maurice Golden to speak to and move the motion up to seven minutes, please, Mr Golden. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the motion in my name. We all want to see deposit returns succeed, and we know it can. Look at the success other countries have had, such as Latvia, where 93 per cent of the population regularly use DRS. Improving recycling and reducing litter are goals we all share, especially now the Scottish Government's recycling efforts have stalled. Their 2013 recycling target still hasn't been met. Ironic given they first committed to deposit return in the same year. But despite 10 years to prepare, they've left it to the last minute. I know, having spent the past decade either working in the waste sector or here in Parliament, calling on them to plan ahead. Such as creating a level playing field for small businesses, developing a reverse vending machine procurement framework, ensuring no council job losses and constructing a plastic recycling plant to retain collected materials in our economy. They've done none of this, and so the Scottish Government finds itself in the middle of an almighty mess of its own creation. I'm grateful to Maurice Golden for giving away. Does he read any significance into the fact that the Minister responsible for this unfolding disaster is sitting very much alone on the front bench? No colleagues there to support her. No one's sitting even behind her in the row behind her. Any significance in this from your point of view, Maurice Golden? It's quite striking and telling because it's not just the Minister's fault. The Minister has been in post since 2021 and actually the Scottish Government have done next to nothing in the preceding years to launch a deposit return scheme. The latest group gateway review concluded, and I quote, A fully functioning and compliant DRS cannot be in operation for the revised August 2023 schedule. Unfortunately, I must correct the record for the member there. The latest gateway review, the one that was completed in October last year, has stated that it is feasible. The member is quoting the gateway review from May last year and not the latest review. The latest review undertaken in October says that it is feasible to deliver by August this year. Maurice Golden? Incorrect. I'm quoting the latest review that was published, and that is in December this year, and that is, in my view, the latest review. The Scottish Government, I need to make some progress, but I will come back to you, Minister. The Scottish Government already had to postpone and scale back the online take back policy, but they're determined to rush the scheme through regardless. Now, I recognise there have been some attempts to address the problems. We've had confirmation on label stickling and the removal of one day charges for retained UK barcodes and month one charges for all products, measures to reduce administrative burden and help smaller producers with cash flow. We all welcome this, but where is the support for small retailers and hospitality? They have upfront costs too, such as reverse vending machines and added costs could see hefty price increases on stock orders. They face being out of pocket with handling fees, not covering their costs, despite the recent increase. The retail handling fees offered in Scotland are significantly higher for manual return points than anywhere else in Europe and are towards the high end of schemes elsewhere in Europe. Our scheme is comparable and in fact more generous than similar schemes in Europe. Maurice Golden? Well, I guess we'll find out in court could the Scottish Government, the Scottish Grocers Federation are taking DRS to court over retail handling fees, so I guess that is the place we will find out whether it's fair or not. That's before we get to other challenges, such as container storage and insurance cover. Incredibly, retailers still don't have an operational blueprint, forcing them to take a best guess at how to spend a quarter of a billion pounds to be compliant. Meanwhile, wholesalers are waiting on solutions for stock and bonded warehouses and how the scheme will define an importer. Consumers face higher costs and reduced choice. One brewer estimates the cost passed on to shoppers could be as much as 40p per container. The Scottish Wholesale Association are warning that up to 40 per cent of brands could disappear from Scotland. Let's not forget local authorities. Falkirk will stop collecting glass altogether, while others are considering reducing collections. We could see job losses, financial hits and poorer recycling services, hardly the outcome expected from a scheme designed to benefit our environment and communities. I need to make a bit more progress. Coming back to producers, there's still a significant outstanding issue. For example, the missing guidance on glass tolerances allowing them enough time to introduce new accounting and invoicing processes and addressing the UK barcode surcharge that disproportionately costs more for Scottish producers. Then there is the producer agreement itself. Producers are being rushed to sign up to a scheme without having the full details or costs. If they don't sign, they can't sell their products. It's a lose-lose scenario. When confronted with those problems, the Scottish Government hide behind the pretense that this scheme is industry-led. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a government-run scheme often fronted by a secretive company put in place without a competitive or transparent process. The Scottish Government of so far refused to issue a section 5 to allow FOIs into Circularity Scotland. It's a dereliction of duty that raises questions around procurement practices and dodgy dealings. I've spoken with dozens of businesses and trade bodies and they all want deposit return to succeed. That goodwill is being eroded by a poorly planned process and we need practical solutions, such as an immediate review to consider how we manage to launch the scheme successfully. Extend producer registration until full costs are provided. Grant small producers a grace period before joining. Take a phased approach to introduction. Review procurement processes so that small waste management companies are allowed to compete for collection contracts. Help retailers by boosting the handling fee. Provide to pay cover for local authority and waste management staff facing redundancy. Take Circularity Scotland into special measures. Plan ahead with a business case for digital system to future proof. DRS has been rolled out in a manner which will destroy business, particularly small business, jobs and livelihoods. If the Scottish Government is willing, we can rescue deposit return. I urge them to do so before we pass the point of no return. I welcome this opportunity to contribute to this debate and move the amendment in my name. There were so many inaccuracies and so much misinformation in that opening speech that I scarcely know where to start, but I shall start at the beginning and systematically, hopefully, correct the record and provide some useful information for members. In May of 2020, three years ago, the Scottish Parliament agreed the deposit return scheme for Scotland regulations, which established the approach and structure of Scotland's DRS. The case for the scheme remains just as strong now as it was then. It will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 4 million tonnes over 25 years. It will reduce litter by a third, cutting the £46 million of public money—that's local authority money—spent cleaning it up litter every year. It will drive an increase in recycling rates from 50 per cent to 90 per cent of scheme materials and it will increase the quality and value of that recycling, moving us towards a more circular economy. In the context of the current climate emergency, Scotland needs a deposit return scheme now. In line with the polluter pays principle, and just like similar schemes around the world, Scotland's deposit return scheme is being delivered and funded by industry, as led by the scheme administrator Circularity Scotland. I want to try and be constructive. CSL issued a contract for waste management collections to Biffa, which is owned by an American hedge fund. No SME in Scotland was invited to tender for that procurement. Will the minister consider releasing the deal? I want to hear the details of that procurement and explain to SMEs throughout Scotland why an American hedge fund is more important than when it faces financial ruin as a result of that procurement process. I'm very surprised to hear a Conservative member think that FOIs and that kind of scrutiny would be appropriate for private businesses, but I'm sure some of my green colleagues would be interested if that's a new Conservative position that they wish to put forward. CSL is now at an advanced stage of building the— CSL is now at an advanced stage of building the infrastructure and logistics network that will underpin the scheme. Sites have been secured across Scotland to handle and process material, counting equipment and vehicle fleets are arriving. I'm very grateful to the minister for giving me a way. She said at the outset of her remarks that there was a problem with information, and yet we've heard so far from her about the case for DRS, which is not in dispute, but nothing about clarity and the inherent problem not with CSL itself. What will she do to tackle it, given that they are so central to her policy? I'll enlighten the member on this further as we go forward with the details. CSL is an advanced stage of building infrastructure. This is happening. Recruitment is under way to create 500 new jobs in Scotland in processing and logistics. This is the work that CSL is doing. Just as importantly, CSL is working closely with businesses of all sizes to prepare for the launch in August this year, and I am in no doubt that those preparations are well under way in the boardrooms, in the bottling lines and the local supermarkets and small grocers. I'll take one more. I'm very grateful. Several small producers have publicly said that they're going to go out of business, thanks to the proposed DRS scheme. Is the minister telling them they're wrong? I take the concerns of small producers very seriously. That's why we had an urgent meeting a week Friday. This week we have launched a specific package to address those concerns. 22 million pounds to support their cash flow and some very practical solutions on labelling, which is what they asked for. We have delivered. I will meet them again tomorrow to see if there are any further ways that we can help them. I'm afraid I must make some progress now. As I've announced there, I've been systematically working through industry concerns with industry, with Circulary Scotland and with SIPA to ensure that there are pragmatic approaches in place to implementation. We heard, for example, concerns about the interoperability of the scheme with other schemes in the UK and, as a result, CSL has confirmed that there are no Scotland-specific labelling requirements. Producers can retain existing and UK barcodes. We are working closely with other administrations to maximise interoperability when DRS is finally introduced in the other parts of the UK. We heard concerns that small retailers faced barriers to applying for an exemption from acting as a return point. As a result, we streamlined our exemption guidance and application process last November, a move widely welcomed by businesses. That means that there is already a mechanism in place for many small retailers to be exempt from acting as a return point if they wish to be while maintaining a scheme that is accessible to all. We heard concerns about costs to producers, particularly around cash flow for small producers and, as a result, CSL has reduced its producer fees by up to 40 per cent and reduced its day one payments for producers using UK wide barcodes by two thirds. We heard concerns from online retailers and producers over the online take back obligations and, as a result, I confirmed last year that I proposed to phase in online take back from 2025 while still protecting those unable to get to a physical return point. We heard concerns on planning needs, on domestic rates, on local authority collections, on deposits, on operational information and we have listed and acted on each and every one of those concerns. In the last two weeks, I have continued to meet representatives across sectors affected by DRS to understand their on-going concerns. For that reason, I greatly welcome Circularity Scotland's announcement yesterday that it will provide a further... Minister, I would just add that I had given a wee bit of latitude to the opening speaker because interventions in the number of three were taken, you have taken three interventions, you will get the same latitude and you have 30 seconds left. Thank you very much. This support not only will fund the cash flow but remove day one and month one charges from all producers. Finally, let me turn to the findings of the recent gateway review reports. A gateway review is a short focus review carried out at key points. In the case of this project, there have been four gateway review stages, which is normal for a programme of this importance and complexity. I'm concerned to see quotes from the superseded May 2022 report being used in isolation, including in today's motion. It is the October review report. Minister, please now conclude and you have to move the motion. The up-to-date review that is the most relevant, which concluded that the DRS programme has gained increased momentum and is in much improvement. Minister, you need to conclude and move your amendment now, please. I move the amendment in my name. Thank you very much indeed. I now call on Colin Smyth to speak to and to move amendment 7.5.1. Up to five minutes, please, Mr Smyth. Labour supports the introduction of a viable deposit return scheme, a view that is shared by the overwhelming number of producers, suppliers and retailers who ultimately have to implement any proposals. An effective scheme would reduce both our waste and our carbon emissions at a time that Scotland is failing to meet our climate commitments and is falling behind on recycling. As a producer responsibility scheme, it will ensure that producers pay for the cleanup of their products. We know that successful schemes are already up and running in 50 countries and territories across the world, and schemes are likely to cover three quarters of a billion people by 2026. There is no question that a successful deposit return scheme would make a positive contribution in our journey to net zero. Our support for such a scheme— Mark Ruskell. I thank Colin Smyth for giving way. I am surprised, given that Labour accepts the huge environmental benefits from the scheme, that members of MSPs for their party signed a letter during recess claiming that there will not be any environmental benefits from the scheme. Which one is it? Are there environmental benefits from Labour's perspective or not? Our support for such a scheme cannot, and it will not blind us to the genuine concerns that Mark Ruskell does not seem to be interested in, about the Government's proposals as they currently stand. It will not stop us seeking to actually improve those proposals. Mark Ruskell might think and listen to some of the proposals that we have today. We welcome recent changes by the Government in relation to online take-back exemptions, reduced producer fees—those remain higher than other European schemes—and the announcement for Circularity Scotland. Coincidentally, on the eve of the debate of some funding to partly address the cash flow concerns of businesses. Those are a step forward, but we do not just need the minister to meet producers tomorrow, as she said she will do. We need her to actually listen to the concerns and take more action, because there remain a number of issues regarding the scheme that is currently proposed that need to be changed. It is clear that those are not concerns just about big business lobbying. Those are the concerns primarily of small businesses in my region and others simply trying to survive. The small gen distillery in Galloway I visited recently have one skew with one bottle design, but we will now need to order twice many bottles each time because of minimum order levels, but simply have nowhere to store them. The same way the local shop I spoke to at the weekend has nowhere to store glass bottle returns. The small cider brewer in Dumfrieshire I visited, who is close to the border, made the valid point that consumers will see less choice as his fellow brewers just a few miles away on the other side of the border will stop trading in Scotland. The brewer in the border is highlighted by Christine Grahame earlier, who raised the fact that the 20p deposit is in effect a 20p price rise for them, their customers, as many of the customers are visitors from just a few miles away in England. They will not be returning that particular product. If we want to talk about the role of big business, when I raised with the minister earlier the concerns over the decision to issue a Scotland-wide tender to Bifw owned by an American hedge fund, she dismissed the concerns of the small Scottish and medium-sized businesses who were excluded from being able to take part in that contract. Many who already provide collection services at the moment, they were not even consulted on that approach. That is not a just transition, so we want to work with the Government to make the changes needed. Does the member share with me concerns around the tender process that, when the original tender was issued, it was for 2 billion containers per year, one week later Circularity Scotland changed that to 3 billion containers a year, thus meaning that many waste management companies, and I quote, told me it was a reputational risk and they would not apply for the bid as well as Circularity Scotland and the Scottish Government, excluding SMEs from bidding for the process. I will give Mr Smith an extra 40 seconds, Mr Smith. I absolutely share those concerns and I share the major concern that it means that small and medium-sized businesses were not able to participate in that, and many will cease being in business as a result of that. We want to work with the Government to make changes needed. It would deliver a successful scheme and one that supports small businesses, because that is a genuine real jobs first just transition. That is why Labour's amendment, which I move in my name, today asked the Government to at the very least consider further changes ahead of any introduction, including first of all a grace period of 18 months for small producers where their products are treated as non-scheme articles. We failed to give those small businesses the information needed for a fair lead-in time, and they should not be punished for the incompetence of Circularity Scotland and others. We should also consider an opt-in, rather an opt-out option for small retailers and exemptions for low volume producers. I appreciate and run out of time, so I want to make this final point. There are many other concerns that have been raised. The decision to include glass without the inclusion of a smelt target raising fears that much of the glass collected could end up in road aggregate and not recycle. There is a failure to provide a full operational blueprint to businesses at least six months in advance of the launch of the scheme. Labour's amendment proposes common sense changes that would address some of those concerns and allow a scheme to go ahead, but phased in to minimise the impact for small businesses. That is crucial. If the Government is serious about a genuine jobs first just transition, I hope that they will support that and work with us to make this scheme work. I thank Maurice Golden for allowing Parliament to have this debate and congratulate him on flushing out a return of around £22 million from Circularity Scotland aimed at addressing at least some of the serious concerns that have been raised over many months by smaller producers around Scotland, including in my own Orkney constituency. In terms of cost and cash flow pressures faced by small brewers, distillers, etc., this additional support is undoubtedly welcome. Sadly and more importantly, as one industry representative put it to me yesterday, it does not address the complexities of the scheme nor does it provide sufficient clarity to help businesses prepare in time for the scheme going live in less than six months. Therein lies both the problem and the case for an independent review. I applaud the efforts of Colin Smyth in his amendment today to set further improvements that could make a difference in addressing those remaining concerns. Those are sensible and should be taken on board. However, there is now a very real risk that the Minister and CSL stumble on week after week amending, exempting and whittling away at their scheme. Why not pause, gather the evidence about what needs to be done and provide the clarity needed to make this scheme a scheme of which Scotland can be rightly proud? Right now, the Government and the Minister seem determined to press on whatever the cost to business, whatever the confusion for consumers and whatever the damage to support for DRS itself. I understand absolutely the imperative to reduce waste, emissions and litter, and I recognise the urgency too, but we need to get this right and we are nowhere close to that position right now. I have made the point previously that the Scottish Liberal Democrats were the first party to put a manifesto commitment to introduce DRS, but the truth is that this has long been an issue that has commanded strong cross-party support evidence by the debate so far. I met regularly with the then Environment Secretary Rosanna Cunningham to discuss the details of the Government's scheme. At that time, like others, I expressed concern at the inclusion of glass, reflecting what I had seen first hand in Norway, where the scheme has been operating successfully for years. Despite promises to learn from these international examples, however, the Government sought instead to go further and faster than the rest of the UK as an end in itself, justifiable perhaps in some policy areas, but in the case of DRS, it actually sowed the seeds for many of the problems that we are seeing now. For months now, I have been working with local stakeholders in Orkney trying to get answers to the questions they have about how this scheme will work in practice, particularly in a more challenging island setting. I am very grateful to Circularity Scotland, to Zero Waste Scotland for their engagement in various roundtables and for the time committed to follow-up meetings. However, the fact is that too many questions remain unanswered, too much uncertainty hangs over the operation of this scheme, and there is too much at stake if the Government gets this wrong. Again, I urge the Government to pause, commission an urgent independent review and pave the way to making DRS a success here in Scotland as we have seen it be in countries around the world. I support the motion and the amendment in the name of Colin Smith. We will now move to the open debate. I would advise members that we have no time in hand and therefore any interventions must be absorbed within the member's time. I call Brian Whittle to be followed by Fiona Hyslop up to four minutes. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the debate, albeit that I lament the need for the Scottish Conservatives to use their time to highlight the increasing disquiet that the industry is feeling around the proposed introduction of the Scottish Government's deposit with the scheme, much of which has been abily highlighted by my colleague Maurice Golden. Let's be clear, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is a policy that is essential to our net zero targets, where the premise of the policy is universally accepted in this Parliament, in the UK Parliament, across industry and to the public. However, although the minister claims that this is an industry-led scheme, I have to say really, Maurice Golden and I have spoken with literally hundreds of producers and suppliers over the months and we have yet to meet just one who have been leading the scheme. Actually, the consistent message has been that we have a Scottish Government minister who will not listen, will not engage and has blinded the serious concerns being raised across the whole industry. There are so many producers and retailers who have significant issue with the way in which this scheme is being introduced that will have a very specific effect on their viability. For example, I visited a fairly small but successful distillery who produced 500,000 bottles of whisky a year, mainly for export, but they have to carry a bottle stock of 2 million bottles because that is the minimum cost-effective run a bottle producer will deliver. They told me that they have put aside £60,000 to pay the fines that they will need for using old stock because it will cost them less than ordering new stock once the scheme goes live. Deputy Presiding Officer, this is not an isolated case and I note Jamie Greene's case that he raised during portfolio questions. It is incredible that the minister in charge is delivering the scheme and answers so many direct questions with, I do not know the answer to that. For example, I asked the minister about the obligations that circularity Scotland has to the banks on paying back the loans that they currently have for the scheme and the potential impact on the timetable from implementation of the scheme. The answer was that the minister did not know and I actually did not feel that she needed to. All I did was look up the company's house website to see that the Bank of Scotland has a floating charge over the property or undertaking of that company. It might go some way to explain why the Scottish Government is committed to, or potentially forced to, come heller high water to an August launch, irrespective of the impact to producers, retailers and the hospitality owners that are taking. I am very grateful to members for the wait. In some ways, it is understandable that the minister might not know because the issues with the lack of information are the problem with circularity Scotland. Does he agree with me that the minister needs to get a grip of them and get them to do their job properly? Absolutely, because there is actually a risk in this arrangement for those businesses who are investing in this circularity Scotland. Should circularity Scotland fail, it will be the suppliers and the investors who lose their money. With such support for a deposit return scheme across the chamber and within the industry itself, this legislation should have been a cake walk for the Scottish Government. All it had to do was look at the way in which similar schemes have been successfully implemented, talked with the industry, listened to their concerns, kept them close and ensured that they were part of the solution. However, this has not been the case. The calamitous result is what happens when those in the Scottish Government charged with delivering the scheme have no business acumen whatsoever. I say that it is not too late to pause and deliver a more cohesive and effective scheme. I urge the Scottish Government and the minister to heed the concerns from the industry and have a rethink. Not to do so will have a devastating impact on the economic viability of so many businesses and ensure that the result is those who really pay in the end will be consumers. The scheme is an important policy in Scotland's drive to reduce carbon emissions, and the Scottish Government's plans are ambitious, bold and necessary. There has been a shift from outright opposition to the DRS by some to acknowledgement and acceptance, but I am concerned about how we have a successful launch and roll-out and would appeal to the minister that she needs to be practical and pragmatic. Smaller businesses are facing unprecedented cost pressures from all directions, and we must be sensitive to that. Some say that the scheme has been rushed, but I remind the chamber that it was May 2019 when the then Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Roseanna Cunningham, made a statement in the Scottish Parliament that a deposit return scheme would be introduced in Scotland. It is worth repeating that, once a deposit return scheme is introduced, it will reduce littering by a third and increase recycling rates of single-use drinks containers from the current rate of approximately 50 per cent to 90 per cent and a reduction of 4 million tonnes of carbon emissions over 25 years briefly. I thank the member for giving way. She makes references to littering. On the basis that very few pubs contribute litter to the environment, is there not an excuse, a reason, therefore, to remove pubs from the scheme entirely? The pubs I go to, people don't tend to leave with the bottles or the cans. If the member had read the letter that Lorna Slater wrote to all MSPs, it set out that pubs that had use of containers within their premises would not be part of the scheme, so I suggest that he reads the letter sent to us all by the minister. DRS has proven to be extremely successful across the world at raising recycling rates, reducing litter and saving carbon emissions, and, according to Zero Waste Scotland research, over 70 per cent of Scottish public support is in the introduction of a DRS. Slovakia introduced its own deposit return scheme in 2022, and officials in Slovakia are already saying that they have seen an uptick of more than 10 per cent in recycling after introducing a deposit return scheme, like the one proposed by the Scottish Government. Larger companies will have had the capacity to trial a deposit return scheme in a number of their stores, and I was pleased to visit Aldi in Bathgate in my constituency last September, who have already trialled acceptance of bottles and cans in exchange for vouchers for the business. I understand that Aldi has used feedback from customers using the scheme to inform their plans as it prepares now for that nationwide rollout. Experience and learning must be shared with smaller businesses in order to ensure a timely successful launch of a Scottish-wide scheme. With six months to go, it is the smaller businesses in retail and drinks producers whose concerns, such as the issues raised by Colin Smyth of storage, are genuine and need to be addressed. With a reduction in producer fees of up to 40 per cent and a two-thirds reduction in day-one payments for producers, that is welcome. Small businesses, particularly retail businesses, may require on-going support. The scheme of Administrator of Scotland's very recent and very welcome announcement of a £22 million fund to support small businesses with the cost of participating in the scheme will make a big difference. Businesses will also need to have clarity on the issue of how that will be applied to deposits, and the UK Government will need to respond to resolve the issue, to minimise risk to the Scottish scheme, as they have been requested to do some time ago on cross-border sales. As I conclude, the further resolutions that have been set out in her letter to MSPs this week have addressed many of the points that Demora, Scotland and others have raised. I encourage the Government to ensure in its understandable drive to deliver that it will continue to be prepared with the support of this Parliament to have the space to be pragmatic and flexible to meet the needs of smaller producers and retailers and deliver a welcome and needed deposit return scheme for Scotland. A successful deposit return scheme should be an important part of Scotland's drive to reduce carbon emissions and the shift to net zero, and international examples demonstrate what can be achieved. However, with only six months to go to the proposed launch, it is clear that we are still some way from a workable scheme. I recently joined together with cross-party MSPs to write to the First Minister about the scheme, highlighting the review team findings that the scheme would not be made to work by August and pointing to the concerns that we are hearing from businesses. If it is regarding the reports and reviews, what we are quoting is the one that is in the public domain. That is what MSPs had to work on, and I am very short of time, so I will just make it. I do not think that the member has taken your intervention. Ms Baker, are you taking an intervention? No, I have explained that. I think that the minister is about to explain to me the review team the one that we used was in the public domain. I think that it is reasonable that that is what the letter was based on. It is not enough to insist that the scheme will be a success by force of will. There is a lot of work required to make it so. It is not clear at this stage how the scheme will work in practice for small producers, suppliers, retailers, hospitalities and consumers. A scheme that was first proposed by the Scottish Government in 2019 was planned to come into force last July, but it was pushed back but over a year following feedback from industry. While there have been some tweaks since, for example, on online take-back, reduced producer fees and exemptions, they simply do not go far enough to provide confidence to producers and suppliers. I can see where effort has been made to simplify the system. For smaller producers, I recognise the removal of the registration fee, but the Scottish Government must recognise it for many producers, particularly as they face increased energy costs and a cost of doing business crisis. Those costs will still be prohibitive, concerns that have been raised by the Society of Independent Brewers. What will the impact be on small craft breweries that produce for outlets across the UK that continue to sell in Scotland, or will those costs make it less likely to do so? Will smaller boutique off-licenses still be able to secure the same range of products? Those producers also face additional costs of either changing labelling and barcoding for the Scottish market, or being charged an extra payment over those who introduce new barcodes. Can the minister advise whether the stickering solution being developed for small producers will be cost-free and is it only available for Scottish producers? There are also questions for smaller retailers in terms of the administration of return points and handling costs. While I welcome some retailers who can apply for exemptions on the basis of proximity on environmental health, more information on how those with premises do not meet those requirements and where space is limited and how they can meet their obligations is necessary. Small producers, retailers and hospitality are desperate for clarity and they feel passed between the Government and Circularity Scotland. Ministers need to show leadership by ensuring that Circularity Scotland addresses those shortcomings, but the Government also needs to accept responsibility for the lack of information and guidance. It is important to remember that the context of this policy lies not just within the wider climate change agenda but also the cost of living crisis. We must be aware that any increasing costs for consumers at this point will be keenly felt by many. I appreciate the model. It does return the additional costs, but for too many families and individuals, any additional outlay in a week can push them into further difficulty. Households need to know how the scheme will work for them in terms of storing and organising to return containers alongside existing collections and arrangements for waste and recycling. I also have concerns about how the scheme will work for everyone, for those whose lives are unpredictable, who move addresses or have other reasons for being less likely to participate. There are also questions around how the scheme will work for the hospitality businesses, particularly those who sell drinks for both consumption on the premises and elsewhere. I do not feel that the minister's letter to the committee seemed to address those issues. It is clear that the current proposals need to be improved so that we can be confident of a smooth introduction that will deliver its aims as being a key part of the circular economy in Scotland. In principle, my party supports the idea of a deposit return scheme. If it was inefficiently, we would support it. International evidence shows that it can work. Many countries already have an effective system in place, and the UK Government is bringing in a DRS across the UK for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I appreciate the member giving way on that point. I just wanted to understand at what point did the Tory party drop its commitment to include glass in DRS? Was it before or after your party accepted a donation from the Wine and Spirit Trade Association? I think that we are here talking about something completely different. Something that affects businesses in Scotland right now, and I will come on to that in a second. A well-thought-out deposit return scheme can help improve rates of recycling. Ms Wells, could you please resume your seat for a second? I just remind members that we should listen to the member who has the floor, which in this case is Annie Wells. I am not responsible for the content of members' comments. We need to listen to Ms Wells, please. It can decrease the amount of litter in our streets. It can help sector natural environment. It should be easy to introduce a scheme where people purchase a drink container and a deposit is returned when the product is recycled. We would be happy to be able to come here and endorse the scheme, but we cannot, because the SNP Green scheme is headed for disaster. We have seen so many times in the past that the SNP Green Government has taken something positive and turned it into a negative. The current proposals for a deposit return scheme are very controversial. Businesses say that they are unworkable, and the likely impact of its introduction if the SNP Greens push ahead will be the loss of jobs and the severe hit to the economic growth. If you do not want to listen to us, then listen to what small businesses are saying about this scheme. As reported recently in the press, one Glasgow-based brewer, Simple Things Fermentations, recently said that we are far from assured and in fact feel pretty confident that the scheme will be a disaster. The added scheme will, and I quote, result in small shops closing and a massive reduction in choice for Scottish people after August. This is the warning from a brewer, but shops are issuing similar messages of caution. Glasgow's rebare shop has said that retailers need to purchase and install expensive equipment to process returns. Something my business has no physical space to host. I literally have a wee shop. I also have concerns about the ability of small shops to manually process and store returns. It will be far too costly for us to arrange the pickup of empty containers. I also spoke recently to a director of a small craft brewery in Glasgow, who has now decided that he can no longer run his business due to the introduction of this scheme. It is not just businesses in Glasgow, but other businesses from a further afield have issued clear warnings about the scheme. Chris Jones, co-founder of an international drinks company Paragon Brands, has said that there is a huge number of smaller producers who have simply taken the option to stop selling in Scotland. The complication, cost and complexity involved in setting yourself up for the scheme just mean that the commercial returns are not there. So what has gone wrong here? Why are so many small businesses and local shops worried about the impact of a deposit return scheme? Why are they fearful of the damage? This scheme could cause when it is something that everyone could support if it was run effectively. The problem is that the SNP Green Government is ranked rotten at communicating and engaging with business community. This should have been a scheme designed for small businesses and they should have been the key people round the table. I know I am past my time. The funding that we heard of yesterday came at the 11th hour, which finally recognises huge costs that will place on business, but throwing money at the problem is not the same as improving the scheme. This is a shambles of a scheme and I urge MSPs of all parties to vote against its introduction at this time. I now call Co-Camp Stewart to be followed by Matt Ruskell up to four minutes. Scotland is introducing a deposit return scheme, which by definition in its application of the polluter pays principle, where people are economically incentivised to recycle rather than to waste. When you buy a drink in a single-use container, you will pay a 20p deposit, which you will get back when you return your empty bottle or can. I remember doing that in the past with my wee ginger bottles. The scheme will help to tackle climate change, increase quantity and quality of materials collected for recycling and decrease litter. In Europe, 10 countries, including Croatia, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, have already implemented deposit return schemes with significant positive results. My constituency in Glasgow-Kelvin has the second highest number of businesses in any constituency in Scotland, so I understand and have listened to concerns, including of the many small shops and hospitality venues. I note that hospitality businesses that only sell drinks for consumption on the premises do not need to charge a deposit to consumers or operate a return point. Brexit, the pandemic and now the cost of living crisis have combined to make life very difficult for these businesses and I am assured to see that the Scottish Government recognises that. It provides significant support, including the unique non-domestic rates package, which will continue to see many SMEs paying no rates over the coming year and those who do pay rates will see them frozen. It is essential that businesses can participate in the deposit return scheme with confidence. The scheme will pay retailers the highest return handling fees for comparable schemes anywhere in the world. It will also deliver a cleaner environment for the customers, support the vital contribution to Glasgow's 2030 net zero commitments and meet their customers' aspirations for a more sustainable lifestyle. I welcome the news that Circularity Scotland has announced £22 million of funding to support measures that respond significantly to the concerns of industry, including the removal of day 1 and month 1. It charges for all producers providing two-month credit terms and changes that simplify and reduce the cost of branding requirements. We must resolve any outstanding issues as a matter of urgency because we cannot afford further delay. Initially, due to be introduced in April 2021, it is estimated that the delay so far has resulted in over £2 billion empty drinks containers either being discarded as litter or sent to landfill or incinerated, which would otherwise have been recycled. That represents 380,000 tonnes of entirely unavoidable carbon emissions over that period. When Scotland introduced its world-leading legislation on minimum pricing of alcohol, some big producers in the drinks industry invoked lengthy delay despite their being cross-party support of this policy in the interests of public health. Ten years on, a report by Public Health Scotland confirms that the minimum unit pricing had no economic impact on the alcoholic drinks industry in Scotland. I trust that the Scottish Government will continue to listen and respond to the concerns from retail and industry. We must move forward with the deposit return scheme with a sense of urgency that the climate emergency demands. I now call Mark Ruskell to be followed by James Dorran up to four minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Well, well, well. First, the Tories back to delay to Scotland's deposit return scheme, then they wanted it sped up and now today they're calling for it to be stopped. What a reckless anti-business message this sends out to the hundreds of businesses who've quietly invested millions and millions of pounds already in this scheme. The reverse vending machines are being ordered. Product packaging is being reconfigured. Staff training programmes are being rolled out. New jobs are being created. But this Tory flip-flopping and scaremongering on DRS doesn't just stop there. Over the recess, the dream team of Fergus Ewing and Maurice Golden hatched a letter claiming that DRS would actually be bad for the environment. How will it be bad for the environment when it's been shown that the scheme will reduce carbon emissions by 4 million tonnes over 25 years? How will it be bad for the environment when it will reduce litter by a third, Mr Golden? Well, I explained very simply. Hospitality business, four waste streams, three trucks go and pick it up, DRS comes in, six waste streams, five trucks. That is an increase in carbon footprint. I really think that maybe if Mr Golden was that interested in DRS he would have turned up to the committee sessions in 2019 where we took extensive evidence on all of these issues. He would have been in great delight looking at all the evidence that came in. It showed that there will be substantial reductions in carbon emissions. Look at the facts, Mr Golden. But, Presiding Officer, so much can change in a week in politics and today the Tories have flipped again. They've flipped again, now claiming that DRS will actually be good for the environment. But just not yet. Not this scheme. Now is not the time. We've heard it all before. We're being told to wait for the UK Government to make a decision on an English scheme, which won't even include glass, despite glass having the biggest carbon impact and causing injuries to people, pets and wildlife as litter. The English scheme is being kicked down the road to October 2025 at the earliest. Now, DEFRA has even publicly undermined that launch date, effectively handing big business the veto on any further progress. Right now, Presiding Officer, it's the big business polluters who aren't paying. The Scottish DRS ensures that they will pay rather than consumers. In fact, at the moment it's the consumers that are having to pay twice. Once at the shop for the drink and then again through tax to pay for councils to collect bottles and cans, while the cost of littering again falls on to the taxpayer. DRS will cut costs for councils. All councils will benefit from reduced collection costs. I recently visited a plastic film recycling enterprise in Fife, which, if scaled up, could take most of Scotland's film. Right now, council curbside collections are full to the brim of plastic bottles and cans, much of which cannot be easily recycled back to food-grade material. DRS will create space in our bins for councils to innovate and expand the range and volume of materials that are recycled, increasing recycling rates. Any scheme, as ambitious as Scotland's DRS, will have issues to iron out at the beginning, but the concerns of small independent retailers and producers are being addressed. The announcement by Circularity Scotland yesterday addresses the cash flow issues and provides a simple labelling solution for those producing less than 25,000 units a year. Registration fees have been waived for some, producer fees reduced, handling fees increased for retailers. In other tweaks, I'm sure, will come around online take-back requirements and exemption of glass returns for some businesses. It's time to reject the Tory scaremongering and join dozens of countries around the world who are helping to save their environment through deposit return schemes. I'm proud that it will be Greens in Government delivering Scotland's first DRS. I now call James Dornan, who is, hopefully, joining us remotely. Up to four minutes, please, Mr Dornan. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I hope that you can see and hear me. I'm delighted to take part in this debate, which brings back many happy memories of sweet seating thanks to that age-old entrepreneurial activity of returning the empties. I welcome the widespread support across the chamber for the deposit return scheme and, indeed, agree with the main thrust of the Conservatives' motion that Parliament believes the scheme can make a positive contribution to increase the rate of recycling and reducing litter for drinks containers. As we've heard, the evidence of this is overwhelming and worth reiterating. A scheme that can reduce littering by a third, increase recycling rates of single-use drinks containers to 90 per cent and cut CO2 emissions by 4 million tonnes over 25 years is certainly something worth welcoming. A deposit return scheme, or DRS, is currently being used in over 45 countries across the globe, and by 2026 is estimated that three quarters of a billion people will be using one. The environmental benefits are well-stated, however. It's vitally important we acknowledge the role that DRS will also play as part of our wider efforts to create a circular economy, one that will create a more sustainable future and much-needed green employment. Recently, Circularity Scotland announced a 7.7 million investment to transform an old engineering depot in Port Leifhan into a state-of-the-art recycling centre. These investments and jobs that we can see replicated across Scotland with the introduction of the DRS as we transition to that circular green economy. At times when local authorities are facing budgets to pressures, this scheme and the investment it will bring could not come at a better time. There will be an overall net gain for most local authorities with less waste to handle and reduced litter and associated clean-up costs. Councils are estimated to spend £18.2 million on higher levels of street cleaning, spending cash in picking up litter and emptying bins that could have gone on to other public services, and the DRS will deliver these much-needed benefits. We've already seen the announcement of the 70 million recycling improvement fund, which will then support the aims of the DRS by supporting Scottish councils to modernise recycling services, align with the deposit return scheme and make it easier for households to recycle and increase local recycling rates. Indeed, when I recently asked the Minister about this, she said that the money that Glasgow City Council would receive through the fund would support the council's investment in a new material recovery facility. The Minister went on to say that this, the DRS and other initiatives will all form part of the Scottish Government's waste route map, a final version of which will be published soon alongside its circular economy bill. I welcome this and also wonder if the Minister would like to use today's debate as an opportunity to update the Chamber in progress to publication. Given the climate emergency that we face and the opportunity that is transitioning to a green economy that can afford us, this and other initiatives are essential now. For those reasons, although I said that I could support the main thrust of today's motion, I cannot support today's delay. I echo Cat Jones, director of association for the protection of rural Scotland, who said that we are in the middle of a climate crisis, with litter plaguing our towns and countryside. The price of any further delay or weakening of the deposit return system would be, frankly, unbearable. Finally, I ask members to consider all those young entrepreneurs who will be championing it a bit for the scheme to come into force. I now move to closing speeches and I call on Daniel Johnson to wind up for Scottish Labour. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Fundamentally this afternoon we are here to debate, not scrapping or getting rid of this scheme. What we are debating is how we make this scheme work, and that is the fundamental importance here. Ultimately, if we look at what we are trying to do here, it is about making sure that we have a genuinely circular supply chain for food and drink, making sure that we do not have a supply chain that relies on containers that ultimately linearly end up in waste, but ultimately end up back in reuse, whether that is through recycling, but ultimately I think that we need to have a system that requires reuse, but the reality is that we are heading for a mess, and we do need urgent action to simplify and clarify, because otherwise the impact on business will be intolerable. Quite frankly, we are six months away and no business can tolerate uncertainty about how it manages its goods and products in less than six months. No business can cope with not knowing what it should be investing in six months away. Perhaps the very big businesses can, but the smallest ones cannot, and that is why we need urgent action. I think that Christine Grahame was right. Thank you very much, Daniel Johnson. On uncertainty for businesses, I have already raised my concerns about craft brewers earlier at Traqueer, but Dryden Aqua, an existing successful glass recycling company in my constituency, re-cut cycles glass into eco-friendly, water-filled tracing systems, but according to Circularity Scotland's rules, their business is not a recycling business. Does the member agree with me that this is yet another example, and nobody has mentioned existing recycling businesses yet, that this is the reason why the scheme must be paused with regard particularly to glass? I think that she raises another excellent example of why we have got real confusion six months out from launch. I do not want to see the scheme paused, but unless there is very urgent action, this scheme is headed for disaster, because ultimately we have a lot of confusion. I have a lot of sympathy for the minister. I think that she has tried to do a great deal in a short space of time, but ultimately we do have confusion right now. While she spent most of her time trying to explain the justification system, that is not where we are. What people need to know is how this will work. Frankly, I would say gently to Co-Cab Stewart and James Dornan that it is very unhelpful people reminiscing about return schemes when this is not what this scheme will do, because ultimately we need a just transition, but the only way is to deliver a just transition if we have a scheme that is robust and understood by those who need to operate it. That is why Fiona Hyslop was absolutely right to say that ultimately what we need is clarity for small businesses, because as Clare Baker and Annie Wells were pointing out, they have idiosyncrasies about what they supply, whether it is boutique retailers supplying niche products that they themselves are importing, or small businesses that will not be able to either afford nor physically install GRS, because, as a retailer, I would not want to be handling broken glass on my premises, and yet we do not really have an answer. We do not have a practical blueprint for small retail, and these are the sorts of things that may well be coming, and I would be grateful. Ultimately, for whatever reason, small businesses do not have those details now when they need them. I think that Liam McArthur is also absolutely right. It is very welcome to see this additional £22 million. The problem is the complexity, and while that might be an upfront cushion, ultimately what many businesses are saying to me is that it is the time that will take for these monies to come back to them that is just simply too long. If the money that comes back to them is longer than the terms that they have for their customers and suppliers, they will be out of pocket permanently. No small business can afford that sort of level of impact to their cash flow. I am very grateful, and I am pleased that Lorna Slater is having meetings, but ultimately what she needs to do is get to grip with this. While many of those issues are ultimately the issues in response to Circularity Scotland, it is her policy that she needs to get to grips with them, because ultimately, as Brian Whittle pointed out, I think that they are the roadblock because they are in a monopoly position and they are the ones that are impeding the successful implementation of her policy. Thank you, Mr Johnson. I now call Lorna Slater Minister to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Government up to five minutes, please, minister. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I just point out to Member Daniel Johnson that just because he doesn't fully understand the details of the scheme doesn't mean that I don't, or that industry doesn't. The answers to many of these questions are well known and well understood. Minister, please assume for a second. Can I please ask members to please listen to the member who has the floor? In this case, it's the minister, or seek to make an intervention, but do not continue with sedentary Bargy Bargy Minister. Thank you. Before I bring my concluding remarks, I'm going to approach some of the technical questions that have been raised by members to help them to understand the scheme better. We've gone in great detail about the support for small producers, so I won't cover that again. The support for return points has been some misinformation communicated in this chamber. Return point operators are not required to invest in reverse vending machine technology. That's not true. Return point operators have three options on the table before them. One is a reverse vending machine if that fits their business model and their premises. Two is to become a manual return point. We have the highest fees for manual return points anywhere in Europe and in the world, I believe. The third is to opt out of being a return point through our streamlined exclusion process, which they may do if they lack storage space, which some of the members have addressed, or if they have health and safety concerns around glass, for instance. Further, I wanted to put into more detail some questions about hospitality that the member to my left raised. Hospitality of businesses that only sell drinks for consumption on the premises do not need to charge a deposit to consumers or operate as a return point. This is known as a closed loop system. Circularity Scotland will collect scheme packaging from them free of charge and then refund the deposits that the business has paid to the supplier or the producer. This is how a closed point exemption will work. Will the minister offer a guarantee that, where Biffa collects from those hospitality businesses, Biffa will not offer to collect the other materials that are already contracted with SME waste management companies? Obviously deals between any supplier or business and other businesses are for them to work out amongst themselves. That is absolutely for businesses to decide what is best for them and not at all for me to interfere with. To round up my points on supporting support for businesses and how the scheme works is that any businesses looking for more information on these measures or how they can register for the scheme should contact Circularity Scotland's customer support team at www.circularityscotland.com or on 0141 401 089 to get the information that they need for their businesses. Daniel Johnson. I am very grateful to the minister for giving me, because clearly I misunderstand a great deal, but does she not recognise the fundamental point where this information is correct or otherwise? Ultimately businesses do not have this information. Is that not the fundamental problem? Is that not the fundamental issue with Circularity Scotland that they have not been getting this information to those that need it? Minister. Circularity Scotland and myself have been engaging with businesses and trade bodies to get this information out as quickly as we can. I encourage businesses that still have questions to get in touch with Circularity Scotland and SIPA to move this forward. Scotland's deposit return scheme will launch on August 16 this year, and I would like to thank all those businesses who have made those investments to date, who have purchased their RVMs, who have sought planning, sorry, I need to get through, who have sought planning permission and who have made that process changes getting ready for the scheme. The costs to those businesses of any delay or pause would be significant. Those businesses that have done the right thing and got themselves ready will absolutely benefit from that August 16 launch, because that is the day those 20Ps start flowing through the system. In terms of the Labour amendment in the name of Colin Smyth, I would like to welcome the continued support for DRS and the constructive approach it shows. I have been cleared today, as I always have, and this Government absolutely recognises the concerns of some businesses, and particularly small businesses, and are working hard to address them. Although it is important to note that, in the case of small retailers, there is no need for an opt-in, as we have already introduced a simple exemptions process for small retailers. In fact, the Scottish Grocer's Association Federation of Myself meet regularly, and their concern is that small businesses might be left out. They want their grocers to be... They can opt out if they want to through our exemptions process, but the Scottish Grocer's Federation want their businesses to be involved because of the benefits of increased footfall of being a return point. That is the benefit that they see for their businesses that can help their businesses to succeed and grow. The changes that have been announced this week have been welcomed by Scottish businesses, and I am pleased that they have been welcomed in the Chamber today. I hope that we can continue to demonstrate that the Scottish Government will work with industry, and at that end I am meeting with producer organisations tomorrow to continue to explore what can be done to ensure that there are pragmatic approaches to implementation and where these are needed. As I said... The Minister is just about to conclude. As I said in my opening remarks, we will continue to listen, and that must include listening to communities and businesses that are calling so strongly for DRS to be introduced. In the words of the environment community... Minister, you will need to conclude. I call on Parliament to work with Scottish Government, industry and others to deliver Scotland's DRS. Thank you very much. I now call on Liam Kerr to wind up the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives up to six minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Well, it's been a torrid afternoon for this Minister. Buffeted from all sides as her rudderless, ambiguous, half-bait scheme has been dissected and dismantled. If a picture paints a thousand words, just look at the empty seats and the empty rows surrounding her. Her SNP partners have abandoned her rather than be associated with this scheme. Indeed, only one MSP from her own party could sit through this afternoon to support her. But it's not surprising that they don't want to associate themselves with this scheme in its current form. Brian Whittle said, and this afternoon's debate has proved him right, this is a policy that is essential to our net zero targets. Where the premise of the policy is universally accepted in this Parliament, in the UK Parliament, across industry and to the public. The Minister rightly listed why it's so important we get this right, and Colin Smyth opened his remarks by openly, expressly supporting a viable scheme. But we have heard that only seven months out from its latest launch date that was first committed to a decade ago and apparently has been worked on since 2019, is not only far from ready, but according to businesses, is unworkable. My authority for that comes from the Scottish Government's most recently published gateway review, which, as Maurice Golden highlighted, concluded that a fully functioning and compliant DRS cannot be in operation for the revised August 2023 schedule. Minister, thank you. There were two reviews published at the same time, both in December, one covered a period from May, one covered a period from October. The latest one that covered the October period says that it is feasible. The member is citing out-of-date information. Liam Kerr. In fact, I'm citing the most recently published one, as the Minister has been told repeatedly this afternoon. Why is this scheme not in operation? Why can't it be well? We've heard the Scottish retail consortium saying that its members, who must sign up by 1 March, still don't have an operational blueprint. We've heard wholesalers are still waiting on a solution for warehouse stock, we've heard producers are still missing key information, consumers are facing higher costs and reduced choice, for example, estimates of 40p additional per container. The Scottish Wholesale Association warning nearly half of drinks brands could disappear from Scotland. All that before we even get into the fact that the Scottish Government's own modelling predicts that over 23 million drinks containers will be fraudulently redeemed every year, creating up to £108 million worth of fraud. So many problems. Yet the Minister barrels on regardless. She called in her motion a pragmatic approach working with industry. Yet brazenly failed to mention receiving an open letter from more than 600 businesses pleading with the Scottish Government to listen to them. And her pragmatic approach is somewhat exposed by her admission just last week that at no stage did she speak to a single expert operating DRS schemes in other countries such as Holland, such as Germany, or Sweden, which has had a scheme since 1984. So when Mark Ruskell or Cough Cab Stewart praised other countries in aid, they failed to mention the significant differences between what is proposed and what works. Presiding Officer, solutions are available if the Minister will listen. We've heard them here. I was reading earlier this week the Federation of Small Businesses pleading for a pause to this scheme as it says, confusion reigns. The Scottish hospitality group said last week this must be stopped and rethought. The only workable way is to pause, rethink, get proper guidance from industry and professionals and join the UK scheme due in 2025. Yes, very brief. Can I ask in the list that he includes the existing glass recycling companies in Scotland who themselves had to see committing with circularity Scotland as it had not reached out to them? Liam Kerr. It's an extremely important point and utterly shocking. Presiding Officer, in terms of solutions Liam MacArthur also spoke well saying why not pause instead of whittling away at the scheme. Daniel Johnson said to the nub when he said to simplify and clarify. Members have added to that things like extend producer registration, grant small producers a grace period, grant an exemption for producers with low volumes, help producers maintain cash flow by allowing a 60 day payment and address the apparent inexperience at circularity Scotland. I'll conclude with a quote from a small business in my own region. He said to me, Lorna Slater said a few days ago she wanted a scheme more ambitious than other nations. Her personal ambitions, her lack of knowledge as well as her disconnect from the rest of the UK will harm the Scottish drinks industry. He's right. This afternoon has made clear we all want deposit return to succeed and throughout this afternoon we've all highlighted the concerns and reiterated the solutions. If the Scottish Government is willing we can still rescue deposit return. So at decision time tonight I urge the minister to put aside her personal ambition to vote for the motion in Morris Golden's name and work with all of us to save this scheme before it is too late. Thank you Mr Care that concludes the debate on launching a successful deposit return scheme and it's now time to move on to the next item of business. There will be a short pause before doing so to allow front bench teams to change position should they wish.