 The next item of business is a statement by Lorna Slater on deposit return scheme. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Lorna Slater. Presiding Officer, in 2020, this Parliament voted for a deposit return scheme for single-use drinks containers. Where the onus for dealing with the disposal and reuse of these containers is placed on the companies which produce them. The Polluter Pays principle. Parliament did so because it looked around the world and saw that deposit return schemes worked with more than 50 schemes worldwide. It did so because it recognised the benefits of dramatically reduced litter, a step change in recycling rates, and having yet another tool in the fight against climate change, and that those benefits increase the larger the scope of the scheme. It did so because the case is strongest, both economically and environmentally, where schemes are all inclusive. And it did so because it took in good faith a UK-wide agreement on the introduction of a deposit return schemes, which include glass. After all, only a few months before the UK government had been elected on just such a promise, Rishi Sunak, Alistair Jack and Douglas Ross all elected on the promise of a full, deposit return scheme. The Scottish Parliament voted for this all-inclusive deposit return scheme because it was the latest in a long list of ways in which our Parliament has used its powers to deliver distinctive and progressive policies for Scotland. The Scottish child payment, free bus travel for under 22s, better rights for tenants, free tuition for students, the indoor smoking ban. That is the context in which I am updating Parliament today. Last week I told Parliament of the communication from the UK government which, at the 11th hour imposed a number of highly significant conditions on our scheme, including the removal of glass. It did so by refusing to agree a full exclusion from the Internal Market Act after almost two years of discussion. The UK government has offered no justification for removing one of the most significant aspects of the scheme which this Parliament voted for, the inclusion of glass. The decision letter says, the UK government notes the strong representations made by relevant businesses. The environmental and economic case for including glass in our DRS is clear and follows the majority of schemes operating successfully around the world. Glass is one of the three main materials used to make single-use drinks containers and accounts for more than a quarter of all the containers to be included in our deposit return scheme as planned. It is one of the most common items to pollute our beaches and broken glass poses a hazard to children, pets and wildlife. Local authority, private sector and voluntary cleanup crews are left to deal with littered glass. Indeed, the UK government's own analysis quantified these benefits, acknowledging that the social and economic benefits of DRS are increased by 64 per cent when glass is included. That is why, Presiding Officer, the Scottish Government proceeded in good faith to include glass in our DRS, backed by this Parliament, and it is why businesses have invested millions of pounds in the infrastructure to handle glass. Up until March 2022, the UK government itself had planned to include glass in the English scheme. As recently as January this year, it also confirmed that Wales would have glass included in its DRS, and that it was for each of the devolved nations to decide on the scope of their DRS. But this isn't just about glass, Presiding Officer. An even bigger act of sabotage comes from the UK government imposing a number of other conditions, including a maximum cap on deposit levels agreed across all nations. One administration fee to cover all schemes across the UK, one barcode for use across all parts of the UK and one logo for all schemes. These are all aspects of schemes that are absolutely legitimate areas of discussion in relation to alignment and interoperability. But the critical point right now is that the UK government can't tell us what they are, when they will be finalised, or if indeed they will even appear in regulations. Or if, as appears likely, they will be delegated to a scheme delivery body, which is at least two and a half years away. A body that is not empowered to deliver DRS in Scotland. The Scottish Government has said from day one that we recognise the need for alignment for schemes across the UK to work in tandem. But let's be clear, Scotland has proceeded as planned. Wales too has worked on the basis of the common UK position. It is England who has chosen to step out of alignment. Minister, if you will just allow me a moment. It is really important that the statement is heard without intervention or interruption. I would be grateful if we could proceed on that basis. Minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In matters of alignment, whose line is it? Just the biggest player in the field? Presiding Officer, we are being invited to go ahead with a scheme here in Scotland where rules that we set now can be changed unilaterally by the UK government at any time. I sought a further meeting with my ministerial counterpart in DEFRA again to seek assurances that we could have a stable basis on which to go forward, but it is clear that the UK government has simply not yet done the work and is not in a position to give those assurances that Scottish businesses need. Earlier today, the First Minister and I also met with a wide range of businesses on where the UK government's 11th hour intervention leaves us. I am grateful for the constructive and focused feedback that we received today. The single biggest message from business is the need for certainty, for planning and investment. The UK government's conditions blow a massive hole in any certainty. Since receiving the UK's decision 12 days ago, we have been engaging intensively with delivery partners including Circularity Scotland and industry to understand how this decision affects their preparations for the launch of Scotland's DRS. The removal of glass and the imposition of as yet unspecified conditions have both been poured over extensively. While Circularity Scotland has been optimistic that the scheme could go ahead without glass, overwhelmingly the feedback from producers, retailers and hospitality is that they cannot prepare for a March launch based on the changes being required by the UK government without any certainty even about what those changes might be. Since the delivery of DRS is an industry-led project, these views are critical. Today, the First Minister and I heard that industry in turn recognises the enormous amount of work carried out by their body, Circularity Scotland, on their behalf and acknowledges the case for sustaining a delivery vehicle for the DRS to come. In summary, the UK government decision excludes glass from Scotland's DRS at the 11th hour contrary to the will of the Scottish Parliament and the all-UK basis upon which we planned. It changes the playing field for non-glass drinks producers. It creates massive new uncertainty for businesses with conditions for interoperability with schemes in the rest of the UK which have not even been legislated for and even then may not be clear. I told Parliament yesterday that our scheme cannot proceed as planned. The refusal of the UK government alone to budge on glass makes that obvious. As of today, it is now clear that we have been left with no other option than to delay the launch of Scotland's DRS until October 2025 at the earliest, based on the UK government's current stated aspirations. I remain committed to interoperable DRS schemes across the UK, provided that we can work in the spirit of collaboration, not imposition. I wrote again last night to the UK government to urge ministers to reset a climate of trust and good faith, to galvanise and retain the knowledge that has been built in Circularity Scotland and DRS partners in Scotland. I have also today written to the NSET committee in Parliament to say that we will be seeking to revisit the led regulations that we laid in Parliament in mid-May, which set our launch date of the 1st of March and made other changes to the scheme. The immediate priority is to bring forward regulations to amend the go-live date and subsequently I will also be considering how to bring forward revised provisions to deal with the UK government's exclusion of glass and how best to reflect the decisions made so far by this Parliament. Let me be clear, Presiding Officer. This Parliament voted for a deposit return scheme. I am committed to a deposit return scheme. Scotland will have a deposit return scheme. It will come later than it need be. It will be more limited than it should be, more limited than Parliament voted for, more limited than I want, than other devolved nations wanted, and even that the Tories at the time of the last election wanted. And these delays and dilutions rely squarely in the hands of a UK government that has sadly seemed so far more intent on sabotaging this Parliament than protecting our environment. Thank you, thank you, continue. But I will work as hard as I can with the UK government and other devolved governments to play the hand that we have been dealt with for a cleaner environment for less waste to meet our climate targets. It's our future, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we will move on. I'd be grateful if members who wish to ask a question were to press their request to speak buttons now. I call Maurice Golden. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The minister for advanced sight of her statement. Let's be clear though, the scheme had already failed long before any intervention from the UK government. The statement today reflects the key concern of businesses having a scheme that works across the United Kingdom. I believe we could have saved a great deal of time and energy if the SNP and Greens had listened to those businesses in the first place. Nevertheless, this is an attempt to salvage something from the wreckage of a disastrous scheme. Just days ago, the minister and First Minister were indulging in reckless scaremongering, threatening to scrap the scheme if glass wasn't included. They tried the old nationalist trick of picking a fight with the UK government, but it backfired. They were rumbled, misrepresenting one of Scotland's leading drinks producers. Circularity Scotland and the logistics partner Biffa both confirmed that the scheme can go ahead without glass. The fact remains that just days ago, the SNP and Greens were ready to abandon deposit return. Humza Yousaf announced it, and I quote, "...the removal of glass fundamentally threatens the viability of Scotland's DRS." So, can the minister tell us, was the First Minister using glass as an excuse to ditch the scheme, or did he just not know what he was talking about? Minister I'm unclear whether the member understands the situation that I have laid out. Scotland's deposit return scheme, as I have set it out, we will look forward to a date of October 2025, which is the earliest possible date that the UK Government has committed to delivering their scheme. The main conditions that have been applied to the scheme through the use of the Internal Market Act place us in an impossible position, so that going ahead of the UK means that we would be asking businesses to comply with regulations that we haven't seen yet. For example, I raise with the member that the UK Government, in their letter to us on IMA exclusion, wants to set a maximum cap on deposit levels. Now, this Parliament passed regulations for deposit return scheme, which has a 20 pence deposit. If the UK set that cap at 10 pence, or 15 pence, or 30 pence, that would be a substantial change for Scottish businesses. How are we to proceed with a scheme on the basis that we have to wait for the UK Government to make that kind of decision before we can give business any certainty? That is the impossible position which the UK Government has put us in, and the basis on which we are being forced to delay the scheme beyond what we would have liked. I call Sarah Boyack. First, I have to start by saying that the late notice of the statement did not assist with parliamentary scrutiny, but turning to the content of the statement, it is clear that Scotland is paying the price for two bad Governments, both of whom seem more interested in a constitutional fight. Let's hear Ms Boyack. I know that you are not all going to agree with me, but let me say what it is. It is a constitutional fight rather than constructive work with each other and critically stakeholders to get a viable deposit return scheme that works for the whole of Scotland. The minister yesterday refused my constructive suggestion to meet with a key stakeholder, and that was on the back of decisions that the contract was handed to a US hedge fund, rather than co-producing with our local authorities, refusing to meet key stakeholders and providing little clarity or certainty to producers or businesses over the last two years. The UK Government, on the other hand, is acting utterly indefensibly, given its own manifesto pledge, rather than getting round the table to get a scheme that works. So now we have yet another delay. Can the minister tell this Parliament how she will act in the next two and a half years to ensure that we get a scheme that finally is a success and that we get a scheme that will increase recycling and reduce waste? Minister. I thank the member for that constructive question, because that is the question. How do we move forward in the next two and a half years with a UK Government that is a bad faith actor throughout? Initially saying they would put glass into the scheme, then removing it, then saying as recently as January, devolve nations, you can do what you like, and then changing their mind and saying, oh no, actually you can't do what you like. This is a UK Government that dithered four months to give us the clarity that businesses need on that, how that would be handled by the scheme, four months and months they delayed to give us that surety on that, who still haven't given us the answers that we need on trading standards in terms of shelf-edge labelling. We are absolutely working in good faith here. We went through the stages of the common framework decision and we have published those stages and the communicates associated with them. We at every point acted in good faith working towards this internal market exclusion. It is the UK Government that have changed their mind. When the First Minister and I met with industry representatives this morning, they highlighted that on the list of uncertainty issues are issues that the UK Government still has not given certainty on and still has yet to. It is now for the UK Government to work through those issues. They need to pass their regulations, they need to bring us certainty on trading standards, they need to answer the questions that it has taken the power away from this Parliament to answer. There's much interest, as you would expect. I'd be grateful for concise questions and responses and I call Claire Adamson to be followed by Liam Kerr. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The common frameworks agreed between the UK Government and the devolved legislatures of the UK, where the mechanism by which constructive engagement would facilitate regulatory divergence and respect the devolution process. By invoking the internal market act on the deposit return scheme, have the UK Government irrevocably damaged the frameworks process? Minister. This is a very serious concern that we should all have, that the UK Government appear to have torn up the common frameworks, the agreements by which these governments work together. My Labour colleague has asked us to work together in good spirit of cooperation with the UK Government. Those frameworks were how we did that. Now the UK Government has torn those up and it is not at all clear to me how we move forward with that tool that no longer exists for the co-operation between these governments and that should be deeply concerning to all of us. Liam Kerr to be followed by Claire Hawley. Thank you, Presiding Officer. On 23 May, I asked the minister how much the Scottish Government has budgeted for its DRS scheme. She didn't know. On 30 May, I asked again, the minister didn't know, but she said she would write to me imminently. This is taxpayers' money and a competent minister ought to know this figure. Minister, how much did the Scottish Government budget for this scheme and what impact will her decision have on that budget? The member will have seen, I'm sure, the representation in letters from BIFA and Circularity Scotland, which detail the level of investment that industry have made in this scheme. This is an industry-led scheme and an industry-funded scheme. BIFA has cited tens of millions of pounds that they have invested. Circularity Scotland has cited hundreds of millions of pounds collectively invested by industry in the scheme. This scheme is to be funded by industry. It is not a Government-funded scheme. Claire Hawley to be followed by Mercedes Villalba. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Scotland has its Parliament restored to afford this country a measure of self-government. And Westminster has blocked Scotland at every turn on equalities issues and now on environmental issues. The UK Government are making a mockery of devolution by trying to hollow out the powers of our Parliament, and the Scottish Tories are happy to be complicit in this. Can the minister advise me if we are not to use the powers of devolution to prevent waste and litter to tackle environmental issues and social issues? Exactly what is devolution for? The member is exactly right. The purpose of devolution is to allow us in Scotland to make different rules that might apply to our different situation in Scotland, and we have used these successfully to make progressive changes to improve the lives of people in Scotland, including the free bus travel for under-22s, including implementing the smoking ban earlier than the UK Government. The UK Government, for example, at the time of the implementation of the smoking ban, did not have the internal market act powers that it has now. We can only imagine how the UK Government might have used those powers to delay Scotland implementing a smoking ban, but it has now given themselves those powers, and it can use them to intervene on devolved issues. Anything that we do, many things that we do to protect our environment, to deal with social issues, the UK Government can now interfere with and block. That should concern all of us who believe in Scottish devolution. The Minister has just described the UK Government's approach as an act of sabotage, but it is this Government who are cancelling the scheme after spending £218 million. Yes, the Scottish Government spent £218 million. It's there in black and white on the Scottish Government's website with the local vote alternative to meet its targets to recycle 70% of waste by 2025. So will the Minister be honest with the public and take some responsibility for the fact that the SNP and the First Minister himself sabotaged this scheme by repeatedly talking it down during their bitter leadership contest? Minister, I will remind you of the need to conduct business with courtesy and respect. As I have presented to this Parliament when we introduced the delay from August this year to March 1, it is the delays implemented by the UK delay in giving us an exclusion to the internal market act, which have caused this uncertainty. That pot was stirred by the Secretary of State for Scotland in February of this year. In January of this year, the UK Government's own documentation says that it is for the devolved nations to make the decisions on the scope of their scheme. The Secretary of State for Scotland then put in all of our minds doubt because he threatens to use the internal market act to block our scheme. At that point, that friction on delivery of the scheme, that uncertainty that was created by the words of the Secretary of State for Scotland, meant that I had to come to this Parliament and announce a delay. He has now made good on his threat and implemented a version of the IMA exclusion, which is only temporary and which puts on us this impossible condition. I will share this condition as I did with fellow member earlier. For example, they have said that the maximum cap on deposit levels will have to be agreed before our scheme launches. The UK has not set their cap on their deposit. They have not set their deposit. They have not passed their eggs. What if that is 10p? What if it is 30p? We cannot tell Scottish businesses to go ahead with the scheme when we don't even know what the deposit amount is. It puts this Parliament, this Government in an impossible situation to ask Scottish businesses to comply with regulations that don't even exist. Colcap Stewart to be followed by Liam McArthur. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Polling conducted in 2021 indicated that one in 15 Tory MPs don't believe that climate change is real and that 9% of Tory MPs said that they did not accept that there is a scientific consensus on human activity causing climate change. The Conservative Party reportedly received 3.5 million from individuals and entities linked to, among other things, climate denial last year. Is there a question and is it related to the statement? Can I ask are these really the people we want telling us what we can't pass environmentally conscious legislation on matters for which the Government has general responsibility? The UK Government has shown no commitment to tackling climate change and indeed this is another example of when the Scottish Parliament voted to take practical action to deal with the climate and nature emergencies the UK Government has interfered to block it. Liam McArthur to be followed by John Mason. Let's remember this is but the fourth delay to the introduction of DRS. Isn't it the case that DRS is just the latest victim of two Governments that see political advantage in stoking division and indulging in constitutional spats? What does the Minister plan to do going forward to provide reassurances to businesses across Scotland? The First Minister and I met businesses today and of course certainty is exactly what businesses are asking for. The uncertainty that is being created is being created by the UK Government who delayed their decision on the Internal Market Act and is now asking Scottish businesses to comply with regulations that don't even exist. That is absolutely the kind of uncertainty that Scottish businesses cannot tolerate. The Scottish Government has worked at all times as a good faith actor following the common frameworks and agreed processes. We can see that the UK Government has not. I wrote to my counterpart at DEFRA yesterday asking for the opportunity to reset our relationship so that we can work together in good faith going forward. That is very much how I'd like to proceed. I have yet to hear back from the UK. John Mason to be followed by Jamie Halcro Johnston. As the minister has just said, businesses and producers have invested millions of pounds in this scheme and the UK Government has now dealt a massive blow to the certainty that it previously had. Can she offer any hope or comment on this uncertainty for businesses? Minister. As I have said to other colleagues, the First Minister and I did meet businesses this morning to have that discussion with them about what it is that they need. They do need certainty on what those regulations will look like, basic things like what the deposit will be. This Parliament said that it would be 20 pence. What will the UK say? What will the UK say about how the scheme administration works? What will the UK say about barcodes and labelling? Those are entirely unknown and uncertain things. I have written to my UK counterpart to ask that we have a constructive dialogue on these matters going forward. I have yet to hear back from her, but I very much hope that we can work toward these things so that we can have a successful launch of Scotland's deposit return scheme. Jamie Halcro Johnston to be followed by Mark Ruskell. Can the minister tell me what analysis she has undertaken and what estimates she can give at the cost of businesses, which will now not be recovered, at least in the short term, because of her shampolic attempt to roll out, and whether the Scottish Government has taken legal advice relating to any compensation claims? Minister. We have, of course, taken advice from many quarters as to how to proceed with the scheme. We know that businesses in Scotland have invested millions of pounds, hundreds of millions of pounds in total in launching this scheme on the basis of the regulations passed by this Parliament. We thank very much all those businesses who have made this investment in good faith, and we look forward to working towards launching Scotland's deposit return scheme so that those investments can be put to good use. Mark Ruskell to be followed by Fiona Hyslop. People who have been campaigning for years to get a deposit return scheme will justifiably be incredibly angry and worried at this delay caused by the utter contempt shown towards this Parliament by the Westminster Tory Government. So can I ask the minister what can you say to those people who are worried about the likely impacts on Scotland's environment, and indeed the impacts on our democracy in Scotland as well? Minister. I would say to those people that I absolutely share their concerns. I share their concerns that the UK Government is not committed to protecting our environment and to block any legislation that this Parliament continues to bring to prevent damage to our environment and to tackle the climate emergency. Some of the businesses that the First Minister and I spoke with this morning spoke of working with the Scottish Government for six or seven years already towards getting this scheme launched. It has been an enormous investment on our part and on the part of Scottish businesses. And to have it torpedoed at the last minute by Alistair Jack on the internal market act to prevent the scheme from going forward as this Parliament passed is extremely frustrating. Fiona Hyslop. The UK Conservative Government that Scotland did not vote for is yet again holding Scotland back and stopping democratically supported policies and laws being implemented. Does the minister agree that being held back by the slowest deposit return scheme that the partial countries have a scheme already does not tackle waste or pollution or help the environment? And what state is the partial deposit return scheme for England actually in? And what guarantee is that it will even be ready for 2025? Minister. Not only the slowest scheme the UK has dragged both Scotland and Wales down to the lowest common denominator. Deposit return schemes are normal. There are more than 50 such schemes around the world. It is normal to have a system where industry pays to collect and recycle the materials that it produces. The UK and Scotland where this cost has to be borne by the taxpayer is not normal and is not the way forward. As to the state of the UK scheme we don't know there are no regulations been passed there are no dates for when that might be passed. They say October 2025 which is the date they aspire to that is the date that we will aspire to because that's the best information that we have at this time. However as with all these matters until the UK can give us certainty on that we will have to treat that with some degree of skepticism.