 The next item of business is topical questions, and at question number one, I call Brian Whittle. Thank you, Presiding Officer, to ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that Circularity Scotland expects to make £57 million a year by the public failing to return containers and that this is part of the company's business model. Minister Lorna Slater. Circularity Scotland is a not-for-profit company, established by industry and made up of producers, retailers, hospitality wholesalers and trade associations. Everyone who pays a deposit on a drinks container will be able to reclaim that deposit in full. Any unredeemed deposits from Scotland's deposit return scheme will be reinvested into keeping the costs of running the scheme as low as possible for producers of all sizes across Scotland. This model is in line with the best practice seen in other schemes around the world. Under the DRS regulations, the scheme administrator is required to meet a minimum of 80 per cent return rates in the first year and 90 per cent in subsequent years. Failure to meet those targets would result in financial penalties, establishing a very strong incentive for Circularity Scotland to ensure high return rates. Brian Whittle. I thank the minister for that answer, but the Scottish Government's own full business case for the scheme states explicitly that unredeemed deposits are anticipated to make up between 32 per cent and 43 per cent of Circularity Scotland's revenue. It goes on to say that modelling assumes that the 90 per cent capture rate of containers is achieved by year 3 of the scheme's operating and it is maintained for the remainder of the 25 years. That seems pretty clear. The higher the capture rate, the lower the revenue for Circularity Scotland. Surely the minister accepts that this creates a perverse incentive for Circularity Scotland to avoid increasing the capture rate. The member is a little bit out of date on what he has said. When the dates were moved forward for the launch of the scheme, the dates for the recycling targets were not changed. The recycling target is 80 per cent in the first year and 90 per cent in the subsequent years of that scheme. The successful deposit return schemes around the world are based on the principle of producer responsibility. They are funded in three ways. One is through the producer fees, the second is through the value of the materials gathered by the scheme and the third is from the unredeemed deposits. That is true for the UK Government scheme. The UK Government's own consultation was published in January on its deposit scheme that it intends to bring in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It has said that, I quote, where a container is not returned, the value of the deposit on that container will be held by the DMO—that is the word for the administrator—and that is an unredeemed deposit and is potentially a significant value stream for the DMO, helping to fund the operation of the scheme. Of course, even if Circularity Scotland were to increase the capture rate, we do not know how such a loss of revenue might affect them because the Scottish Government has, in their seemingly endless quest to muddy the waters around the scheme, shrouded Scotland's DRS administrator in secrecy, creating a private company immune to freedom of information. Despite being producer-led, as the minister is so fond of saying, it is utterly unwilling to tell producers signing up to the scheme what potential liabilities they are accepting responsibility for, including the terms of the contract with Biffa. Will the minister say sense, pause this opaque, badly designed, potentially disastrous mess of a deposit with Sun scheme now, or does she remain determined to leave us guessing all about whether it will even reach launch, given that it will depend on who wins the SNP leader's election? Thank you, Mr Whittle. How is business supposed to plan a way ahead in that environment of uncertainty? As passed by this Parliament, the regulations call for this to be an industry-led scheme. Circularity Scotland is the not-for-profit company established by industry. I have a list here of the members of CSL, which include trade associations, the Scottish Society of Independent Brewers, the Scottish Softdrinks Association, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and many more, Diageo, Coca-Cola, Heineken, Sainsbury's, Marks and Spencer, Lidl and so on. Those are the members of CSL. This is who CSL has created CSL, and they are responsible for making sure that it works for them. CSL is a private, not-for-profit company, whose responsibility is to help businesses in Scotland to comply with the regulations as passed by this Parliament. They are working towards, and they have reassured me, that they are working towards a go live date of 16 August, as agreed by this Parliament. Thank you. There is much interest, as you would expect in this entire session. I will be grateful for concise questions and responses. Fergus Ewing. Much, if not most, of the £57 million that will be lost in non-redeemed, non-claimed deposits will be paid out and lost by those who cannot or cannot readily return bulky and heavy items, bottles, tins and cans. Those will predominantly include the poorest, those without a car, the elderly, mobility-impaired and rural and island dwellers who cannot access return points. Their money will go, to the non-disclosed, but probably telephone number salaries of the bosses of Circularity Scotland. Is this transfer of money, minister, from the poorest to the richest, not simply immoral? I think that the member mischaracterises the scheme entirely. Every person in Scotland will pay the £20 deposit when they buy a drink in Scotland, when they buy a container, drink in the containers that are scheme articles, and they will get their £20 back when they return those articles. Accessibility to the scheme is critical to the success of the scheme, and we are working hard with Circularity Scotland and Biffa to ensure that every person in Scotland will be able to access the scheme and will be able to get their deposits back. Accessibility is important. The Government took a decision recently to exempt small retailers from the online take-back scheme. Can the minister explain how people who are housebound, disabled, for example, will have their bottles taken back if they have taken them online from a small retailer, because there is a real accessibility challenge for those people? Nobody is required to take the scheme article back to the exact store that they bought it from, so even if you buy it online from a small retailer, you can return it anywhere. However, the member makes a good point about people who are not physically able to get to a return point. With the proposed change to the regulation in which we are phasing in the online take-back, it is of course important that everybody in Scotland, including those who have accessibility and mobility issues, be able to access the scheme. That work is under way to understand how many people that is and how we may best ensure that they can fully access the scheme. Ross Greer, thank you. Even the Conservatives at Westminster understand that unredeemed deposits should be used to help to cover the cost of the scheme and thus reduce costs for all, as is normal for equivalent schemes across the continent. Perhaps the real reason that the Scottish Tories and their colleague Fergus Ewing seem so desperate to bring the DRS into disrepute is because they object to the fundamental principle of the scheme that the polluter pays instead of the taxpayer. If the minister could share with Parliament the costs to local councils every year of litter caused by drinks containers and therefore how much this alone will save the taxpayer. Absolutely. £46 million a year of public money is spent every year removing litter and flytipping from the Scottish environment. Deposit return scheme will mean that local authorities will have less waste to handle as well as reducing litter and associated cleanup costs. This is good for residents and council budgets. Cat Jones, the director of the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland, supports removing the costs from the taxpayer. She says, for too long, the costs of single-use cans and bottles have been met by local taxpayers, communities and our environment. It is high time that industry took responsibility for the waste that they create just as they do around the world. To ask the Scottish Government how many children and young people it estimates have not taken up the free bus pass. At the end of February, there were over 590,000 cartelders in the young person's free bus travel scheme, equating to 63.5 per cent of the estimated 930,000 eligible population. That means that approximately 340,000 children and young people have not yet joined the scheme. However, uptake of the scheme is as high as 73 per cent among 12 to 15-year-olds and 75 per cent among 16 to 21-year-olds who can use it more independently. Those who are already accessing the scheme continue to make good use of free bus travel with over 50 million journeys made since the scheme launched in January of last year. Parliamentary questions answered by the transport minister show that, despite over a million pounds being spent on a PR campaign, hundreds of thousands of young people are still missing out on their free bus pass entitlement. Not only is getting a free under-22 bus pass needlessly complicated, many of Scotland's rural areas lack reliable and frequent bus services. Bus pass has saved young people money with free journeys to education and work, but the SNP-Green Government cannot give them away in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. Why has not the campaign been more effective and what lessons have been learned from it? Does the minister think that it is anything to do with cuts to bus services by networks across the country? To remind the member that, when I was first appointed in January of last year, of course, we were still dealing with the impacts of the Omicron variant of Covid. That delayed, of course, the roll-out of the marketing campaign. He will understand that that was inhibiting people's usual travel behaviour at the time. I think that that was the right decision. The second point that I would make to the members is that there were a number of challenges with the application form at the start of last year in relation to the process that she has outlined. I worked with the improvement service, who, of course, ministers tasked with the delivery of the scheme to improve the application process to make it easier for young people to apply, and I think that that was fundamentally important. Now, the member made reference to the marketing campaign, of course, which came into effect later in the year. The campaign was actually really effective. It managed to reach over 97 per cent of the adult population in Scotland. It would have seen or heard the campaign at least three times and over 94 per cent of 13 to 18 euros. The campaign also had a really positive impact on people taking action, with 79 per cent of people who had seen or heard the campaign claiming that they had taken action as a result. The evaluation overall shows the impact of the marketing campaign on the under-22s to have been a successful one. I hope that the member will support the continued successful roll-out of the scheme to her constituents. Beatrice Wishart. Young people can travel home from university or anywhere in Scottish mainland for free using their bus on any bus. Why then can't the passes be used for young people travelling home via ferry or inter-island ferries, where ferries are used like buses? If there are passes going unused, why can't the provision be extended to ferries and those young people crying out for this change? I thank the member for her question. She has repeatedly raised the point with me, and I am sympathetic to the point. I remind the member, of course, that when the under-22 scheme came into effect, we did to carry out an island communities impact assessment. That concluded that ferry travel should not be included in the scheme, but that issues related to ferry fares should be considered as part of the island's connectivity plan and our wider fair fares review. I am sympathetic to the point that the member has made. In our previous meeting earlier this year, I alluded to the member that it would be included as part of the Government's fair fares review that we will publish later this year. I very much recognise the dependency that her constituents will have in relation to ferry services as opposed to bus services given her constituency. There are many members who wish to ask questions, so I would be grateful if we could pick up the pace, Bob Doris. I commend Glasgow Life for recognising the application registration card to address barriers faced by refugees and asylum seekers under 22 who have strold to provide age ID evidence to secure a national entitlement card for free bus travel. However, the Red Cross informed me that some local authorities do not accept the card and that it is not listed in national nor local guidance. Can I ask the minister to look at this matter to ensure that guidance is updated and best practices shared across Scotland? Will she look more widely at lengthy waits, often several months, for paper applications to be processed? There are guidance available for local councils advising of proofs specific to asylum seekers and refugees for the arc that has been issued by the Home Office. That can be used to apply for the NEC in person or in conjunction with other information or evidence that might be available to a council, a school or a dedicated staff member within a council. The arc is not accepted for online applications as part of the UK proof of age pass. It cannot be used to establish evidence of identification online, so there is no online equivalent to help to give that offline to support applications. My officials in Transport Scotland are not aware of any delays in relation to the application processing, but if the member is able to provide that evidence, I would be more than happy to raise that directly with Glasgow Life. It is also worth pointing out that the Government is supporting a short-term pilot led by the Refugee Survival Trust and third sector partners, which commence at the end of January this year. We absolutely must have quicker, shorter, I should say, questions and responses. Local councils have had to cut subsidies for bus travel because of the Scottish Government's woeful local government settlement. The fact of the matter is that the availability of decent public transport outside of the major cities is unreliable and infrequent, particularly across the central region. Can the minister explain how that policy can be deemed a success if there is a lack of bus services for our young people to enjoy? It is worth pointing out that, as a Government, we invest over £300 million annually to deliver free bus travel for all children and young people under 22, as well as for eligible disabled people, and everyone aged six year over. That means that Scotland has the most generous concessionary fair scheme in the UK, with more than 2 million people eligible for free bus travel, encouraging more people to take the bus and move away from taking the car, which is hugely important in relation to reaching our net zero target. In addition, we have also been able to award over £25 million of funding in relation to the bus partnership fund. I might have thought that Megan Gallagher would have welcomed that additionality in terms of the funding provided by this Government. Scottish Government statistics released today show that the number of buses in service in Scotland has plummeted under the SNP from 5,400 in 2007 to just 3,700. Passengers on-board journeys have been halft over the same period. Young people are asking the same question that older people have been asking. What is the point of a free bus pass if there is no bus to use it on? With even more service cuts set to happen in the next few weeks, what is the Minister going to do to fix Scotland's broken bus market? I thank the member for his question. The member needs to reflect, as a Labour MSP, that the bus sector continues to face a number of challenges presented by Brexit in relation to staffing challenges and staffing shortages, but also in relation to fuel costs. Many of those matters, as he will know, are reserved to the UK Government. I discussed them at length with the bus task force, which I convened just a couple of weeks ago now. The sector is hugely challenged by the challenges that are presented by those issues. I hear the member struggling for a certain position. Excuse me, minister. Can I just ask that there are no interruptions when ministers are responding and when members are asking questions? I am sure that we would each wish to be treated courteously and respectfully, minister. I continue to hear the member trunting away from a sedentary position, but I will continue. I think that it is important to highlight the additional support that this Government provides for the widest concessionary travel scheme in the UK. Over 2 million people in Scotland can travel for free, and the importance of that cannot be underlined enough. Because, given yesterday, we managed to hit the 50 million targets for the number of journeys that have been taken by the under-22 scheme, but also in relation to tackling poverty. Another point that I thought a Labour member might have been interested in is that the Child Poverty Action Group has now managed to assess that children and young people in Scotland are saving on average £3,000 in a lifetime compared to their counterparts elsewhere in the UK. Because of the investment, this Government is putting into concessionary travel. To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the EIS vote to accept the latest pay offer, what assessment has been undertaken to understand the impact of days lost as a result of industrial action on children's education and the school environment? Cabinet Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville. The modifications to courses already in place this year will help to mitigate some of the impact of the industrial action. In addition, prior to the industrial action, the SQA has confirmed that a sensitive and evidence-based approach to grading is planned this year. A wide range of study supports available through the national e-learning offer, including live interactive Easter support webinars for the senior phase that will run from 3-14 April. Local authorities and schools themselves will continue to monitor the impact that industrial action has had on lennards and whether or not any additional action is needed at a local level. I thank the minister for that answer. I would say that teachers, parents and children are absolutely delighted that we have eventually got to a conclusion, and that is welcome in terms of the dispute. Over the past months, I have talked to many teachers on picket lines and arranged meetings. I have become quite alarmed at the concerns that teachers are raising around the decline in discipline in schools, the decline in behaviour in schools and, indeed, the levels of violence that are increasing. Teachers say that post-Covid that issue has become greater and greater. Does the cabinet secretary recognise those concerns and, if so, what does the Government do to try to support teachers and front-line schools? Mr Rowley raises a very important point. During my biannual discussions that I am holding with unions last week and this week, this is one of the areas that is on the agenda, I have already recently had another discussion with the teachers panel about what we can do on this issue. One of the examples of that is the review of the national guidance on this, to see where national government can make changes to support teachers and support staff. That is an issue that the Government takes very seriously, that is why that review is being undertaken, that is why research is currently being undertaken at this point, and why Education Scotland has also just completed a thematic review of the reporting of incidents of bullying in our schools. I thank you and I welcome the cabinet secretary to say that. I wrote to Fife the director of education in Fife last week, basically raising the same issues in my concerns. She replied by saying that they are experiencing, like across Scotland, increased mental health problems, the impact of poverty, the impact of trauma and the impact of the pandemic, all having an impact on front-line schools. She went on to say that a model of having social workers based in school in secondary schools is about to be piloted in four secondary schools, also that we now have police presence in six schools playing a front-line role. From all that and from the actions that Fife has taken, what you can see is that there is a massive pressure on our schools on education and there needs to be some kind of, I believe, co-ordinated support and resources going in for those types of actions. Does the cabinet secretary agree and is that something that she is going to continue to talk to education authorities about? I welcome the work that Fife council is undertaking, as indeed I do with every council who are looking very carefully at this issue. The solution will be in different schools and local authorities, but the member quite rightly points to what we can do at a national level to support them. I would point to for example the presence of councillors within our schools, within secondary schools, that we work with local government to fund and, of course, the increased investment in CAMHS. The issue around social workers, community development workers and so on is also something that we see a wide variety of uses with the pupil equity funding, for example, to try and support where there is a challenge around attainment or attendance at school as well as behaviour. I very much welcome the work that Fife council is undertaking and I am very keen to continue my dialogue with them. If I might quote a teacher, behaviour is arguably the most concerning issue for classroom teachers in 2023. There rise in violent, aggressive and criminal behaviour, along with the relentless spread of low-level behaviours, is undoubtedly the most mentally taxing and serious issues in education. That is from a teacher. As teachers return to the classroom after the pay dispute, that is not untypical of how they view the classroom environment. We have all heard that from teachers, all of us. In no other public-facing line of work is vicious abuse tolerated. Why should teaching be any different? How long before we see more industrial action as government fails to act? That is serious and requires a serious response from the cabinet secretary who, in the Scottish Government, is speaking to front-line teachers. Is she speaking to and listening to front-line teachers herself? When will there be practical help? I am not sure, Presiding Officer, if Mr Kerr was listening to the answer that I gave earlier. I just said I spoke to the teachers panel, which is made up of front-line teachers. I met with unions last week, which are representatives of front-line teachers. We will continue those meetings this week, and we will be discussing this very issue. I would point out that one of the aspects that the teachers panel were keen to feed back to me was that the violent incidents that we see are exceptionally rare. One is one too many, but they are exceptionally rare, and violence, bullying and intimidation of staff or pupils is not tolerated within our schools, either by this Government or any local authority. We are taking very seriously this issue. I went in further detail to Mr Rowley and to some of the aspects that we are doing, because I recognise that this is a concern of both teachers, pupils and their parents, and we will continue to work with front-line teachers to support them.