 Gweithio'r next item of business is consideration of business motion 9497, in the name of George Adam, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, on a change to the business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press their request speak button now. I call on George Adam to move the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and moved. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore the question is that motion 9497 be ydym ni? Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is topical questions, as ever. Short and concise questions and responses would be appreciated. At question 1 I would call Jamie Halcro Johnston. To ask the Scottish Government what economic impact it expects businesses across Scotland to experience as a result of its decision to not provide compensation for the delayed deposit return scheme. Minister Lornaus later. We have been left with no other option than to reset the timescale of the deposit return scheme and delay the launch until October 2025 at the earliest, when the UK Government says it will aim to launch its own scheme. This is a consequence of the decision by the UK Government to impose only a partial exclusion from the Internal Market Act for deposit return, forcing a last-minute change of scope in Scotland's DRS and creating new, vague and undeliverable conditions for interoperability with schemes in the rest of the UK, which do not even exist yet. The overwhelming feedback from businesses was that, given this last-minute imposition by the UK Government, a March launch was no longer possible. A considerable majority of businesses therefore called for that reset of the date to match that of the UK's stated target of October 2025 at the earliest to reduce the impact of the UK Government's decision at the 11th hour. Jamie Halcro Johnston I am not sure that any of that answered any of the questions that I asked. Businesses are reported to be invested as much as £300 million preparing for this scheme, not because they wanted to, but because the Scottish Government required them to. This investment, made in good faith, has now been put at risk because ministers didn't do the work necessary to prepare for the scheme and then refused to listen to business when it was clear to everyone—everyone except, apparently, Lorna Slater—that their roll-out was a shambles. Will the minister, who, throughout this process, has seemed unable to give any answers on the scheme other than those in the prepared responses written in her folder, tell us how much the Scottish Government estimates that she has already been invested by businesses in this scheme? Investment is unlikely to see any return on for some time. The member had several points in there. The accusation that we didn't do the work is an absurd one. The regulations that have passed by this Parliament in 2020 happened before the internal market act of December 2020. In the very next year, in 2021, I started the process to get the exclusion for the internal market act nearly two years ago. It wasn't until this year, after January, that the first question was even raised that the Scottish Parliament might not be able to continue to deliver on our deposit return scheme because of the internal market act. The number that the member quotes is the number that I am familiar with, which is that we estimate that about £300 million has been invested in the deposit return scheme by businesses across Scotland. We know that jobs have been created, infrastructure is installed, IT systems are getting up and running as we work towards our launch date. It is, of course, frustrating for all of us that we have had imposed on us these impossible conditions to match a scheme that does not exist yet. For example, the UK says that we have to match their deposit, but what is that? Ours is 20 pence. They have not said whether there will be 10, 20, 30, no idea. This is an impossible situation for us and we recognise how frustrating that is for Scottish businesses. In committee this morning, Lorna Slater told my colleague Liam Kerr that we do not believe that any action that we have been required to take gives rise to any obligation to pay compensation. Can the minister confirm that this comment is a result of legal advice that the Scottish Government has received? Can the minister tell me, without reverting to the usual attempts at constitutional grievance or deflection, what responsibly she takes personally for the failure of this roll-out and, given the Scottish Government's refusal to compensate out-of-pocket businesses for her decision to delay the scheme and with business confidence in her at rock bottom, why does she think she is the person to take this scheme forward? I will try to address as many members' points as I can. On the question that I have said this morning that we do not consider that any action that we have been required to take gives rise to any obligation to pay compensation, I will reiterate that statement. It is, of course, a long-established position that legal advice that the Scottish Government receives is not published, and the Scottish Government has received— Minister, and I would ask that you could be as brief as possible also. Please continue. The Scottish Government has received legal advice on matters relating to DRS on an on-going basis as appropriate, including prior to any changes to the scheme being announced. On the member's final question about the deliverability of the deposit return scheme, I can put it before this chamber again. There are three conditions in particular that make it impossible for us to continue to deliver the deposit return scheme if we are to align with a UK scheme that does not exist. The first is the matter of the deposit, which I have set out. With what are we intended to align, since the UK has not raised it, the matter about the miniature sizing and the matter to the— The UK has not said what size products will be in the scheme, how can we tell businesses to prepare when the UK has not said what will be included in the scheme, and on the matter of labelling. Our regulations do not say anything about labelling. It is not possible for me to deliver a scheme that might include requirements for labelling when I do not know what those are and this Parliament does not have devolved powers on labelling. It is for the UK Government to take responsibility for their decisions and setting these impossible conditions for them. I am going to state again at this point that we have a great deal of interest in both questions this afternoon and I will simply have to exclude many members if we do not have concise questions and responses. In recent answers to me, the minister has indicated that industry has invested in the region of £380 million, inflation, cost of living crisis and on-going Covid recovery means that businesses are taking a bigger hit than ever before. How confident is the minister that the total amount of investment that is made by business is only that figure that she has mentioned so far—£380 million. In her discussions with businesses, have any of them raised concerns over their long-term survival and how they plan ahead, given the result of the upfront costs of implementing this chaotically handled scheme that they have already made in good faith? I absolutely appreciate the investment that Scottish businesses have made. Of course, we intend to deliver a deposit return scheme as soon as we may. That will depend currently on the UK Government's timeline, but they have said that they are aiming for October 2025, so that is when we will aim to be able to go live as soon as we possibly can. In terms of discussion with business, immediately after we found out about the Internal and Market Act Partial Temporary Exemption, I met with businesses—the First Minister and I met with businesses—and overwhelmingly in that discussion businesses said that their preference was to align with that October 2025. That is us listening to business, to what they wanted to do in order to deal with the situation that we had been put in because of the partial and temporary exclusion. At the very last minute, I met the Parliament's decision to include glass in Scotland's deposit return scheme, but not only that, it also imposed a number of other requirements, including harmonising the deposit. Does the minister agree that those requirements were designed to make the scheme undeliverable and that the chaos that they have caused was Westminster's very intention? I thank the member for the question. Despite the chantering on my right, I have outlined very clearly to this chamber the impossibility of the conditions that the UK Government has set upon us. The UK Government has not even decided on those details yet. How can we set the same level of deposit as England when they cannot say what that deposit will be? How can we expect businesses to prepare without knowing one of the most fundamental details of a deposit return scheme? That alone would make a marked launch unworkable, given that no guarantees could be given to us that we would not have to change the deposit or even after that date. The Westminster Government would know full well the uncertainty that creates. If there is one thing that every single business is agreed on, it was that certainty is needed. How can we ask them to go forward with a launch when we cannot even tell them the basics like what the deposit might be? Some businesses say that they will demand compensation and the minister says that the Scottish Government is not liable to pay compensation. If, as has been suggested, this results in litigation, from which budget will the Scottish Government meet their legal costs and any award, how much of a contingency has been made for that? That is absolutely indeed a hypothetical question. Whilst we do recognise the steps that businesses have taken to be ready for deposit return, ministers were required to respond to the significantly changed circumstances brought about by this late, partial and temporary exclusion to the internal market act. We do not consider that the action that we have been required to take gives rise to any obligation to pay compensation. Businesses in Europe who are already running schemes such as this one that this Parliament approved, such as DRS, which includes glass, exist in their countries such as Denmark, Estonia, Germany and Latvia, and this is just another power play from the UK Government, aimed at keeping Scotland bound to the economically devastating bar wagon of Brexit Britain. Does the minister agree with me that we can no longer afford to leave Scotland's desire to live the values of a progressive nation at the hands of Westminster Tories? There are already many deposit return schemes operating successfully across the EU, and our own scheme was modelled on those schemes. Most of those include glass, because of the economic and environmental case for including glass, is clear. It is also important to note that, even within the EU, those schemes do vary in terms of what the level of the deposit is, for example, as well as the scope of what is covered. However, while different deposit return schemes are not an issue within the European Union single market, the UK Government has unilaterally decided that such variants within the UK would be so unacceptable that they have overruled the Scottish Parliament with no evidence to support their last-minute decision. Look at the chaos and damage that they have caused. I have no doubt that if Scotland is to take the action that we need to protect our environment, then the power needs to be in Scotland's hands, not Westminster's. Thank you. We are very tight for time this afternoon. There is considerable interest in question number two, and I call Katie Clark. To ask the Scottish Government whether it has carried out an impact assessment on the withdrawal of appliances by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service from stations across Scotland. The number and location of fire appliances needed to keep communities safe is an operational matter for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I have been assured that, in reaching the decision to temporarily withdraw 10 of the 635 operational appliances from service, SFRS has thoroughly assessed impact. The SFRS board considered historic deployment data and a robust assessment of the risks present in the communities that those fire stations cover. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is continuing to engage with its staff and local communities on those proposals prior to their introduction in September. Firefighters play a vital role in protecting our communities and promoting safety. I expect the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to continue to deliver a high standard of service to keep communities safe. It has been announced that fire appliances will be withdrawn on a temporary basis in Greenock and nine other stations across Scotland. With the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service estimating it needs to make £36 million in cuts, surely the current wildfires show that we need to build resilience into our fire service, not cut it. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service budget has not been cut. We are providing Scottish Fire and Rescue Service with an additional £14.4 million in £23 to £24 million, but due to the current economic climate, pay and other inflationary pressures mean that SFRS is still required to look for savings to deliver a balanced budget. However, those savings are not simply about budget savings. SFRS currently has in the region of 635 operational fire appliances across Scotland. That modest reduction will allow SFRS to ensure that full crews are available, so the more of the remaining 625 operational appliances are always available for deployment. Freedom of Information responses show that around 45 per cent of the fire are assessed as being in poor or bad condition, and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service chief officer cited a £630 million backlog in the capital budget. Will the Scottish Government commit to an emergency funding package for the fire service? The safety and welfare of staff is paramount, and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service continues to invest in the repair and maintenance of its buildings so that it can deliver services to the communities across Scotland. We will continue to work closely with SFRS to identify the capital funding that it needs for building, fleet and equipment, and the fire stations with the least facilities are in remote locations and deal with very few incidents. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has introduced procedures to ensure that firefighters in those locations have workable solutions to ensure that contaminated personal protective equipment, for one, is dealt with safely. High rises in my constitution require two fire appliances to attend before any blaze is tackled, yet it made health stations proposed to go to a single appliance station. Local firefighters that I met with are concerned that this could lead to delay in tackling such fires as I share those concerns. Given those concerns and that there has been a lack of consultation, and there has not been consultation, ministers, there is a lack of consultation and an absence of data given to firefighters, will she agree with me the process should be suspended and a fresh safety review conducted? The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service temporary changes have been based on data and the premise that there should be no increased risk to the public or to firefighters. SFRS has a predetermined response to high-rise fires, and that response is already provided from multiple fire stations, and that will not change. Any large-scale incident will be quickly responded to with the necessary resources, including specialist high-reaching appliances from the local area and beyond. It remains a position in the event of a fire in a high-rise building. SFRS will undertake a rescue of any person who is unable to self-evacuate and who is affected by fire and smoke. It is very important to emphasise that SFRS does not respond to incidents from one single fire station. Operation control deploys the appropriate level of resources to every incident based on predetermined response levels. I think that the general public will be extremely concerned and worried about what they are hearing in the chamber today. The reality is that our fire service faces hundreds of millions of pounds of backlog of maintenance, and they made clear to this Parliament's Justice Committee the direct effect that current funding arrangements would have on the availability of appliances. Can the minister give a categorical assurance to members of the public that they are listening to this, that no one will be put at harm or at risk as a result of these cuts to services? I have been assured by Scottish Fire Rescue services that that is the case. The resource budget was increased by £10 million in 2023 to 2024. As I have said, it does need to make some savings due to pay and other inflationary pressures. Willie Rennie The minister is reading her brief very closely, but I do not think that she really understands the extent of the cuts that are being imposed across Scotland. In Fife, we are losing four appliances in different towns. In Methil, near my constituency, it covers North East Fife when the retained services are offline. If there is only one appliance at Methil, what happens to North East Fife? What can the minister say to my constituents about their safety if that appliance is cut? The SFRS has, for some time, faced challenges and has been unable to fully crew all appliances at all fire stations due to a range of factors, including absences and vacancy, and this results in a need to deploy firefighters from other stations to crew priority appliances. With additional overtime costs and uncertainty for individual firefighters, as the station they will operate is out of a given shift, the current initiative to temporarily withdraw a number of appliances from service is a tool to both secure efficiencies and resolve the issue of appliances being taken off the run and on-place by basis. Clare Baker. There are serious concerns about the number of cuts that we are facing in Fife. I think that we have a 40 per cent of the cuts alone in Fife, and that is after a significant number of fires in recent months. If this is a temporary measure, what has to happen in Fife for us to have the service returned to the service that we have now? I have real concerns that will lead to insufficient cover. They will have to demonstrate that there has been difficulties with insufficient cover. As I said to Mr Doris, it is important to emphasise that SFRS does not respond to incidents from one single fire station. Operation control deploys the appropriate level of resources to every incident based on predetermined response levels.