 Yn ni'n nhw'n gweithio d pawnodd o'r sgimau ddifuget. Maent y gallwn bydd yn y gyntaf o'i feddylion, ac mae cwestiynau o'r sgimau i ddifuget lleol rhai o'r edrych yn ddifuget yng nghymru, ac mae hwn yn ddifuget o'r Sgimau. Çaid ni'n rhoi gweld os yn gwastiodd o'r parwmwynt wedi'u gwblodau yng Nghymru o'r gwmpas yma o'r llunos yma o'r Sgimau Cymru. Fe i chi'n ddewch i'r eich gofyn ydy, oedd y cyfnodd y dyfodol yn ymddangos i ddweud o'r ffordd. Scotland's deposit return scheme is based on a simple producer pays principle, and there are more than 50 such schemes across the world. Scotland might be following behind many other countries, but we are well ahead of the rest of the UK. Because we are ahead, we have been seeking an exemption from the Internal Market Act, an act which the UK Government imposed on devolved nations after Brexit. I had expected to be here today letting Parliament know that the UK Government had done the right thing and granted a full exclusion to the Internal Market Act for Scotland scheme. This is because waste and recycling are fully devolved policy matters, and this Parliament legislated for the scheme in May 2020. The environmental and economic benefits of the scheme have never been in question. It will reduce littering by a third and increase recycling rates of single-use drinks containers towards 90%. Glass accounts for a large proportion of these containers, and is one of the most common items to pollute our beaches. That's why our scheme included glass from the beginning. It's why almost all schemes around the world include glass. Our scheme includes glass because it's best for the climate, best for the environment and best provides a level playing field across businesses. Rishi Sunak and Alistair Jack know that, too. They were elected on a manifesto commitment to introduce a deposit return scheme with glass. That commitment set the context in which Scotland's own deposit return scheme was designed. The commitment to UK schemes all including glass. So in 2020, when the Internal Market Act didn't even exist, this Parliament agreed regulations for a deposit return scheme which included glass. The UK Government has since U-turned on their commitment to glass, despite their own evidence showing how important it is environmentally, economically and financially. And their 11th hour reversal has four impacts on Scotland's DRS. Firstly, the scheme, as designed with glass, would reduce carbon emissions by 40 million tonnes over 25 years, the equivalent of taking 83,000 cars off the road. The UK's intervention means slashing that by a third, by over 1 million tonnes, at a time when the UN has warned that all actions possible are needed to tackle the climate crisis. Secondly, the removal of glass from our scheme makes no sense economically. The UK Government's own 2021 impact assessment of the deposit return schemes across the UK showed that the social benefits of reduced litter, emissions saved and to the economy are increased by 64 per cent when glass is included, from £3.6 billion to £5.9 billion. Thirdly, forcing Scotland to remove glass at the 11th hour risks critically undermining the commercial viability of Scotland's DRS. Glass will make up between a quarter and a third of volumes recycled. Removing it now will severely reduce the scheme's income while the glass-related costs are largely sunk. Fourthly, removing glass risks significant knock-on effects, changing fees on plastic and cans to cover the sunk costs of glass, changing business models between can-based products and those that are glass bottle-based, particularly for businesses in Scotland who are mainly can-based and risking production switches to more carbon-intensive glass. However, as recently as January this year, the UK Government continued to say that it was up to each devolved nation, including both Scotland and Wales, to decide which materials were in the scheme. They have now U-turned on that, too. Presiding Officer, two U-turns in a row does not put the UK Government back on track. It puts them at odds with evidence, at odds with global best practice and at odds with their own promises. This is just the latest example of how devolution is, quite frankly, under sustained attack. When we pass laws to make lives a bit easier for trans people, the Scottish Secretary steps in and blocks the legislation. When Scottish ministers engage with other nations to share ideas— Minister, Minister, could I ask you maybe to resume your seat? I know very well how emotive this subject gets, but I said at the start there would be no interruptions or interventions. The low-level rumbling is now escalated to an intervention and an interruption. I would ask you to decide to have an opportunity to ask questions shortly. When we pass laws to make lives a bit easier for trans people, the Scottish Secretary steps in and blocks the legislation. When Scottish ministers engage with other nations to share ideas and to promote Scotland as a place to visit, study and invest, the UK Foreign Secretary issues a diktat to overseas embassies to silence and sideline them. And now it is clear that we cannot even introduce a recycling scheme without it being sabotaged by bad faith actors in the UK government who never supported devolution in the first place. The Scottish Secretary, whose job is supposed to be ensuring that devolution runs smoothly, seems more interested in torpedoing Scotland's Parliament than he is in protecting Scotland's environment. Excuse me, minister. Interuptions can come in many forms. Can I please ask the chamber as a whole to respect the fact that there should be no interventions and no interruptions? Minister, I will give you the time back if you could resume. The UK government has told this Parliament that it cannot deliver the scheme that Parliament voted for. We can only echo a more limited scheme for England that the UK Parliament has not even voted for yet. The UK scheme has currently got no agreed legislation, no scheme administrator, no contracts, no credible timescale and no glass. And yet we are expected to agree right now a maximum cap on the deposit levels across the UK before the Scottish scheme launches, a shared registration process, one marking or barcode across the UK, none of which currently exists. The aim of having schemes in the UK that work alongside each other and act as seamlessly as possible is entirely right, but that is not what the UK government is doing. Its approach has nothing to do with co-operation or partnership. It's our way or the highway. In Scotland, we can have a DRS that will be ready to launch next March. Scotland will finally be moving on with DRS in the UK and not just talking about it. And yet the UK government wants to sabotage the one scheme in the UK that will be ready to go for a UK scheme that is nothing more than a plan on a page. The UK government aims to appoint their scheme administrator in the summer of 2024 and launch their scheme barely a year later in autumn 2025. This is not credible. In reality, it looks like the UK government is kicking the can down the road. My challenge to the UK government today is this, to demonstrate how and when they will put in place a UK scheme for Scotland to align with, show us a credible pathway, the regulations, the scheme administrator, secure funding, the staff recruitment, the system development, the procurement of delivery contracts, the partnership work with producers and retailers. In other words, show us all of the things that we have been working on hard to put in place in Scotland. All of the things that will give businesses, producers, retailers, stakeholders the certainty that they need. So where does that leave us, Presiding Officer? If the UK government had given us the full exclusion that we had sought, then I would be here today setting out all the detailed steps that we are taking ahead of go live next March. Instead, we are now being forced to examine whether the deliberate sabotage by the UK government leaves us something that we can make work. We will need some time to go through the detail of the UK government decision and conditions, and I will update Parliament on next steps. There is still a win-win opportunity for the UK government if it immediately reverses its 11th hour decision and enables Scotland to pave the way for the all-in DRS scheme, including Glass, that its own analysis concluded was the best option. That is what it should do. Presiding Officer, this is about protecting our Scottish environment, but it is also more than that. It is about protecting our Scottish democracy. We are here as the consequence of a Brexit that Scotland didn't vote for. Every day, people are paying the price of reduced living standards, a weaker economy and less money for public services such as the NHS, not just broken glass but a broken union, a union of supposed equals exposed as anything but by a Tory Government pursuing a scorched earth approach to devolution. Scotland deserves so much more than the broken pieces of devolution. We deserve always to get the Governments that we vote for and the policies that we need. We should not have to put up with Westminster interfering with our Parliament and sabotaging important policies to suit their agenda. I look forward to a different future, where we can have all the powers that we need right here in this Parliament to deliver for the people of Scotland to protect the environment and to build a stronger, fairer economy. Thank you minister. The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes, after which we will need to move on to the next item of business. I would ask members wishing to ask a question to press the requested speak button now, and I call 1st Maurice Golden. I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement. But this statement should have been delivered by the minister for independence because it is solely designed to pick a fight with the UK Government. Anything to distract from the mess the member has made of deposit return. The scheme is on its third delay. Retailers have taken legal action, and producer registration was such a shambles that the minister couldn't bring herself to admit how many hadn't signed up for the scheme. I want the scheme to work. That's why I voted for it. It's why I called the debate on it when the minister wouldn't, and it's why I've offered solutions. Mr Golden, can you resume your seat? The same applies to those asking questions as to the minister in delivering the statement. Can we please listen to the questioner and we will listen to the response thereafter? Mr Golden, please resume. I'll give you the time back. Thanks for that. As I said, I want the scheme to work. That's why I voted for it. That's why I called the debate on it when the minister wouldn't, and why I've offered solutions to the minister in both public and private. The minister has come to Parliament today not to update us on deposit return, but to indulge in an anti-UK rant. She would rather pick a fight with the UK Government than support a scheme that works for everyone. She has traded her environmentalism for nationalism. The minister has today said that the scheme can launch next March, but she assured us that it would launch in August while secretly planning a delay. Will the minister be straight with business for once? Is deposit return going to launch on 1 March 2024? Yes or no? The member understands and I know that he is being a bit disingenuous. He knows that the power here sits with the UK Government because of that internal market act, that internal market act that was not consented to by this Parliament, and in that case, it is out of my hands. It is with the UK Government. We have done everything that we can possibly do. We've done all the work that they now need to do. We've got a scheme administrator. We have the investment. We have the funding. We have the regulations passed by this Parliament. We are ready to go. The UK Government has done none of that work, and, moreover, they are using the internal market act to block the work that we've done and the investment that is made by Scottish businesses. That is a tragedy. The minister has chosen to make this statement about the constitution and is using it as an excuse to divert attention from the utter mismanagement and the uncertainty that her scheme has caused. The UK Government has done none of that work. The UK Government has done none of that work. That scheme has caused. She has already delayed the scheme to address the fact that she had not listened to businesses at all, and she threatened to cancel it two weeks ago. But stakeholders have told me that, despite repeated requests, they have been unable to meet with the minister or her officials when they had solutions to offer. So can the minister now tell me this week in answer to the question that I asked her last week whether she examined options that would prevent the need for an internal market act exemption altogether, a missed opportunity, because repeated requests to meet have been turned down by the minister and her officials? And can the minister now tell us, in the light of her statement, exactly how much has been spent on this scheme and whether the deposit costs for cans and plastics will now have to go up? Minister. There were several questions in that which I will attempt to answer for the member. In terms of the Internal Market Act and all the options, of course we considered all the options. We know and we have known ever since the Internal Market Act was put in place that we needed an exemption to that internal market act. That is something that is fully well understood. That's why we started that process back in 2021, nearly two years ago. I do meet with businesses regularly. I met this morning with producers and with retail and hospitality representatives. I meet continually with businesses and indeed have listened very carefully to them. Over the past year the member will have known that I have come to this chamber multiple times to talk about the adjustments that we've made to this scheme to facilitate businesses, things like support for small businesses, support for producers, clarity for return point operators. That is evidence of me working carefully with businesses and listening to them. I met with them this morning at the first possible opportunity after getting that letter late Friday night to have this conversation about how we now move forward with the scheme. I'm sorry, there were too many points in the member's question and I haven't managed to write down the last three. There is clearly a huge amount of interest in asking questions. We'll get through all of them or a lot of them if the questions and the responses are as brief as possible and we do not get interventions from a certainty position. Call for Clare Adamson to be followed by Liam Kerr. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Constitution, Europe, Exile and Affairs and Culture Committee report on the UK internal market act noted that common frameworks agreed with the UK Government could resolve tensions within the devolved settlement through managing regulatory diversion on a consensual basis. Can I ask the minister what is the impact on the workings of common frameworks if the UK Secretary of State for Scotland unilaterally overrules the will of this Scottish Parliament in implementing a deposit return scheme completely within this Parliament's competence? Does she believe that his actions represent a consensual approach to post-Brexit devolution sentiments? The member is quite right to highlight issues around the common frameworks. The UK Government's decision is extremely concerning for the future of this Parliament's ability to legislate effectively in wholly devolved policy areas. It also undermines the common frameworks process for exclusions with which the UK Government agreed with the devolved Governments. The problem at the heart of the issue is the UK Government's hugely damaging internal market act, which it imposed on this Parliament without its consent. The Scottish Parliament approved the deposit return scheme for Scotland regulations in 2020 before the internal market act was imposed on this Parliament without its consent. Liam Kerr, can you be followed by Jackie Dunbar? Thank you, Presiding Officer. Last week I flagged that the minister's DRS scheme has cost the taxpayer around £220,000 so far, and I asked the minister how much the Scottish Government had budgeted for, but she didn't know. Can she tell us now? The member will know that I did offer to write to the member with that information so he will have that imminently if he doesn't have already. The Scotland's deposit return scheme as passed by this Parliament is an industry-funded and industry-led scheme. So it is funded by the producers of these materials as a producer pays scheme. The fundamentals are there, but this is an industry-led and industry-funded scheme, not a publicly funded scheme. Jackie Dunbar is followed by Mercedes Vial. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can the minister confirm that ultimately what we are seeing here as the Scottish Government and many others feared is the UK Government taking effective control over devolved policy making from the democratically elected Scottish Parliament? Is she concerned about the presence this may set? Indeed, the member is quite right that this is a sincere threat to devolution, which I think even our Labour colleagues should be very concerned about. Anyone who believes in devolution needs to stand up for this Scottish Parliament's ability to make regulations and legislation in devolved areas. The UK Government now being able to block legislation of this Parliament on a whim at very late day, even when Scottish businesses have invested an estimated £300 million in getting the scheme going, have recruited people to do these jobs, is a shocking state of affairs. This is not something that can continue forward. The UK Government needs to recognise the common frameworks and work to our agreed processes, not govern on a whim. I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement today. The minister will be aware that on 20 January this year the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DEFRA, announced that Wales's deposit return scheme would include glass bottles and make use of existing curbside collection. So can the minister confirm when she last met with her counterparts in the Labour Government in Wales what discussions she's had with them on Wales's plans for glass deposit returns and what our nation's governments can learn from one another as we seek to develop deposit return schemes to improve recycling rates across the whole country? I thank the member very much for that question. Of course, we applaud Wales's ambition to include glass in their scheme. It aligns with the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government's ambition to include glass in our scheme. Wales is at a substantially different place in the development of their scheme. They have not yet passed their regulations through their Parliament. We did ours back in 2020. I think it very likely that Wales will come up against exactly the same problem that we have on the Internal Market Act. To answer the member's question fully, the last time I spoke with Welsh colleagues was on Monday at the regular monthly IMG meeting where a deposit return scheme was covered and where our Welsh colleagues are extremely supportive of the Scottish Government position. And they are very supportive of the devolution argument that the devolved nations should be able to make legislation on devolved powers. So we are in full lock step with the Welsh Government on this matter. Christine Grahame to be followed by Alex Cole-Hamilton. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Minister, I emphasise that I fully support DRS, including recycling glass, and deplor interference by the UK Government on what is a fully devolved issue. My concern has always been the practicalities regarding in particular glass recycling. Will the minister confirm circularity Scotland will have these issues resolved in glass recycling brought by many businesses by launch next year? Minister. I thank the member for the question. The UK, just to be very clear with the members as to what's happened net today, is that the UK Government have told us we cannot include glass in our scheme. That is a major change to our scheme scope. It is a major change to the scheme's business case. As of this morning we have just started engaging with businesses to understand what this means for them, given that the investment in glass has largely been made. The vehicles to transport glass, the reverse vending machines that accept glass, the processes and systems to handle glass are already largely invested for and in place. We now have to go back and look at what this means and whether this leaves us with a viable system going forward. Alex Cole-Hamilton to be followed by Rona Mackay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Well, this is proof if anywhere needed that both the Scottish and UK Governments would pick a fight in an empty room. They are at it and businesses are caught in the middle and being messed about. The fact is the Scottish Government have made a pig's ear of a good idea long before it tried to use a constitutional route to muddy the waters around its own inadequacy. Retailers and producers could work with a scheme that is competent and does not throw out barriers, but that is not what they had in front of them. Can I ask the minister? Is it part of the problem that we have here two Governments that are incapable of owning up to mistakes for whom co-operation with each other is a dirty word, even if that is what hard-pressed businesses are crying out for? Minister. I am a bit shocked by the member's question in the sense that the Lib Dems used to be staunch defenders of devolution. Yes, that will happen to that. But now seem to be in the position of undermining hundreds of millions of pounds of investment that Scottish businesses have made in this scheme. Hundreds of Scottish businesses signed up to signed up to the producer register so that they can contribute to the scheme. Businesses all over Scotland you will have seen reverse vending machines starting to appear in local grocery stores. Businesses all over Scotland have got ready for this scheme. We are ready to go. Scotland's scheme is ready to launch in March. This is a spanner thrown into the works at the very last minute by the UK Government who was as recently as January this year in writing saying that it was up to the devolved nations to determine their scope. And they have changed their mind at the last possible minute at the worst possible time when that investment has already been made. Rona Mackay to be followed by Craig Hoy. Your Presiding Officer, given the UK Government has failed to adhere to the agreed rules for seeking an exemption to the IMA despite the Scottish Government following these rules at every step of the way. As a minister is concerned as I am about the unilateral changing of the rules around exemptions when it comes to the future of devolved policy making. The UK Government's decision is extremely concerning for the future of this Parliament's ability to legislate effectively in devolved areas and it undermines the common frameworks. The problem at the heart of this issue as I have said already is the Internal Market Act which was imposed upon this Parliament without its consent. We passed our regulations back in 2020 before the Internal Market Act was imposed on us. These regulations are wholly within devolved competence. Something that the UK Government itself agrees on I can quote from that document that I referred to earlier. In January this year the UK Government's document said since waste management is a devolved policy area it is the responsibility of each nation of the UK to decide the scope of its own DRS in a way that fits its policy needs. And now they have you turned on that position at the last possible minute creating more uncertainty for Scottish business that is exactly not what we need at this point. Craig Hoy to be followed by Mark Ruskell. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. The minister tells us that this is an industry-led scheme while industries such as the Scottish Horsailers Association has welcomed the UK Government's intervention. So why is the minister attacking business? Minister. I met with the Scottish Horsailers Association along with many other industry players. There are of course a range of views from industry. The main view is that what we need is certainty and to have a clear decision. And I was expecting to be able to stand here today saying that the UK Government had done the right thing and granted a full exemption in line with their own policy. As stated in that document in January that it is up to devolved nations to determine the scope of their own deposit return schemes. Many businesses in Scotland have invested in glass already. They have put it in place for first spending machines with glass. They have bought vehicles for transporting glass. They have invested in storage to store glass safely. This is me listening to Scottish businesses. They have made that investment and now the UK Government has made a change of the last minute which means that we now have to question how we're going to carry that investment forward. That is not helping UK businesses. Mark Ruskell, to be followed by Fulton McGregor. Can I welcome the news that the Minister is working very closely with her Welsh counterparts in the Welsh Government? It's clear that Labour and Wales are going to face the same sabotage that we're now facing when they come to lay their own DRS regulations that do include glass. So can I ask the Minister how should devolved Governments now be working together to challenge this decision of the UK Government to defend devolution given that it now appears that common frameworks are effectively broken in these islands? Mark Ruskell is, of course, entirely right to highlight the choice that Labour has to make. Back in the days of Donald Durer and John Smith, Labour championed devolution as an opportunity to address a democratic void in Scotland and to ensure that Scotland could strike out on its own path if the Scottish Parliament elected by the people of Scotland so chose. That is why Labour in those early years took a distinctive path on homelessness reform, for example, or led the way on the UK and the smoking ban. Since then, this Parliament has continued to choose a path which is distinctive for Scotland. Tuition fees, child payment, free bus travels for under 22s, rent cap and so on and so on. The challenge for parties who believe in the Scottish Parliament's right to decide is to back that right under this latest attack. That is what Labour and Wales is doing. It might be at an earlier stage than we are on deposit return scheme and once it comes to the drafting of the regs and doing the detailed design, it will very likely face the same barriers that we are now dealing with. So even if Labour in Scotland will not stand tall in the attack on the Scottish Parliament, it should stand in support of its colleagues in Wales. Fulton MacGregor, can you follow by Jamie Greene? Thank you, Presiding Officer. If you are going to do something, do it properly. Scotland's new deposit return system should include glass. Simple. If you support DRS, the strongest case is for glass, not my words, Presiding Officer. Those of Morris Golden in February 2019. Indeed, the 2019 UK Conservatives Manifesto pledged to introduce a deposit return scheme to incentivise people to recycle plastic and glass. So, can I ask the minister, does she think this from the Conservatives is anything other than hypocrisy and politicking of the very worst possible kind? Indeed, this must put Members of the Conservative Benches in a difficult position, given that Douglas Ross stood on a manifesto commitment to the Westminster Parliament having a deposit return scheme with glass. Of course, Morris Golden has stated the support for glass and made arguments for the inclusion of glass, which I really couldn't have stated better myself, but he makes an excellent case for why we should have glass in the scheme. Of the 51 territories and countries operating deposit return schemes, 45 include glass. The UK Government's own analysis of deposit return schemes across the UK showed that the social benefits of reduced litter, emissions saved and to the economy are increased by 64 per cent when glass is included. Glass is one of our most common items to pollute our streets and beaches. By not including glass, glass bottles will unnecessarily end up as broken glass in our streets, our parks and on our beaches. Jamie Greene, to be followed by Colin Smyth. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Presumably, the point of the Internal Market Act is to identify what effect any regulatory divergence would have on the trade and flow of goods and products across the border. In that vein, can I ask if the minister is willing to publish the Scottish Government's own analysis of what their DRS scheme would have on Scottish drinks producers? Minister. As the member will know, we have published all of our impact assessments, which include impact assessments, which include trade, impact assessments, which include consumer choice. We can direct the member to where those have been published online so that he can read them. The whole purpose of devolution is to allow regulatory divergence so that we can do things differently in Scotland, which are correct for us. And as I say, up until January this year, the UK Government supported and have in writing said that it is up to devolved nations to decide the scope of their schemes. It is not unusual for there to exist different deposit return schemes within an internal market. For example, within the EU there are some nations and regions that have deposit return and some that do not. Although all of them are committed to doing it before 2029. Colin Smyth, followed by Jamie Halcro Johnston. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My constituents who live near the border and routinely by, or if it's a business cell on both sides of that border, often on the same day aren't interested in the constitutional bickering that we've had today. The lack of clarity... The lack of clarity... The lack of clarity over... Mr Gray. The lack of... You desist from heckling from a certain position. The lack of clarity over alignment are actually real concerns of businesses. In my constituency maybe the minister might want to listen to that. If there are any further delays in the Scottish scheme and the 2025 date for the Welsh and English scheme looms ever closer, at what point does the minister conclude that actually bringing the schemes in at the same time makes sense when it comes to that alignment as the Welsh Government have concluded? Minister. The 2025 date for the UK schemes would mean that they would pass their regulations, get in place a scheme administrator, get the funding in place, get the contracts in place, the infrastructure in place in less than two years. That is not credible that they will launch a scheme by 2025. We are all in agreement that the best scheme would be alignment of all of the UK. That is why when this parliament passed the regulations in 2020 it was with the understanding that all nations in the UK would include glass because that is what was in the Tory manifesto in 2019. That is a betrayal of Tory voters to take this U-turn on this position. Timmy Halton-Johnston to be followed by Fergus Ewing. Given Scotland's businesses have lost confidence in this scheme because of the minister's shambolic handling of it, what confidence if any can they have that Lorna Slater can sort that this mess out of her own making? Minister. The question the member asks is not particularly substantive. I'm here in Parliament today because of a letter that was issued at 9.45 at night on a Friday after the information in it was leaked to the press 12 hours earlier. Mr Halton-Johnston you've asked the question listen to the response. A disrespectful way to treat this parliament and now meaning that instead of today instead of today me being here to lay out before you how we are going to move toward our launch on March 1st I am instead here telling you how the UK Government has at the last minute put in a spanner in the work to sabotage our scheme that we now have to figure out a way forward for Scottish businesses that have invested in good faith according to the regulations passed by this parliament that the UK Government has called into question and undermined that investment and those jobs. Fergus Ewing to be followed by Murdoff faith. Presiding Officer in the last couple of days the minister has warned indeed threatened that if the Scottish DRS fails and doesn't go ahead it would result in littering in Scotland of 600 million bottles. Presiding Officer the population of this country is 5.5 million that would require every person every man, woman and child personally to litter 109 bottles on our streets, beaches and parks a year this obviously doesn't happen so can I ask if the minister will withdraw this false and disingenuous claim and instead work with the British glass federation in order to build on the excellent recovery rates and recycling rates of glass at the current time. The numbers that the member quotes 600 million glass bottles is the estimate of the number of glass bottles that are in use in Scotland and are therefore included in the deposit return scheme. They would be in scope of the deposit return scheme and then therefore would be prevented from being littered by being included in that scheme. Given that they given the UK's late stage intervention that has removed glass from the scheme this does not give us the scope to work with businesses on glass it has been removed against the will of this parliament and against all of the evidence that the UK government has for why including glass is a good idea. And very briefly Murdo Fraser. Thank you Presiding Officer how many of the 600 million bottles Fergus Ewing has just referred to are already being recycled. Minister, as briefly as possible. Glass recycling rates in Scotland are stuck at a level of about 63%. Equally we know that curbside recycling does not lead to high quality glass recycling because of the high level of contamination and the lossiness of curb level recycling. Because glass is multi handled it breaks and turns into powder. Deposit return scheme means a higher level of recycling a higher quality of recycling higher levels of recycling up towards 90%. And because it is such good quality recycling it can be recycled into high value products. That is back into glass bottles instead of as with curbside recycling being recycled into lower quality products such as aggregate for road fill. Thank you minister that concludes the business on the statement. There will be a brief pause until we move on to the next item of business to allow the front benches to change.