Deposit Return Scheme
To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to commence its deposit return scheme on 1 March 2024. (S6T-01421)
Due to the United Kingdom Government’s 11th-hour intervention to change the Scotland’s deposit return scheme—both to remove glass from it and to add significant uncertainty around essential parts of it, such as the 20p deposit and the costs to producers and fees for retailers—it is clear that the scope and form of the scheme that this Parliament passed cannot go ahead as currently planned.
We are urgently establishing—we have been doing this over the past 10 days—the extent to which there is a way forward for a modified scheme in relation to its scope, terms and timescales. Crucially, that depends on whether the UK Government can provide timely, stable and reliable assurances on basic operational matters, such as trading standards, the 20p deposit and producer fees. It also depends on the extent to which there is industry support for an alternative scheme.
I am writing to the UK Government today to ask for an urgent discussion about those conditions. I will update Parliament at the earliest opportunity on the outcomes of those actions and what they mean for Scotland’s deposit return scheme.
I am not sure that members heard a specific answer on whether the scheme will commence on 1 March 2024.
In any event, the minister mentioned glass. Circularity Scotland Limited—the scheme administrator—says that the scheme is viable to launch without the inclusion of glass, but the First Minister claims that removing glass would threaten the viability of the scheme. They cannot both be right, so who does not know what they are talking about: the First Minister or CSL?
The Scottish Conservatives are on very shoogly ground when discussing glass, given that Rishi Sunak, Alister Jack and their own Douglas Ross stood on a manifesto to put in place a deposit return scheme including glass. The UK Tories are not only undermining our scheme in relation to glass; it looks as though they are doing the same thing to Wales, too.
Glass is one of the three main materials that are used to make single-use drinks containers, and it accounts for more than a quarter of such containers. It does not make as much of a business case to run a system without glass. That would undermine the fundamental point of deposit return, which relates to the environmental and litter benefits. Even the UK Government’s analysis of deposit return schemes across the UK shows that social benefits relating to reduced litter, emissions saved and the economy are increased by 64 per cent when glass is included. It is England that is the outlier by removing glass from a bottle return scheme.
There is much interest in the subject, so I would be grateful for concise questions and responses.
We did not hear much in that response. The implication is that the minister thinks that CSL does not know what it is talking about in relation to glass.
However, that answer was instructive because, over the past week, the Scottish National Party-Green coalition has gone from mess to meltdown on deposit return. It has threatened to scrap the scheme, tried to pick a fight with the UK Government and been caught misrepresenting one of Scotland’s leading drinks producers. Why does the minister think that division and conflict will be more productive than collaboration and co-operation in rescuing her scheme?
I must highlight to Liam Kerr and the rest of the chamber some of the misrepresentations that we have heard, particularly from the Secretary of State for Scotland. His accusation that glass would be used for aggregate is completely untrue and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of how our deposit return scheme would operate and, indeed, how our wider recycling legislation operates. Alister Jack’s misrepresentation in relation to the process that has been agreed and to adherence to common frameworks, as well as the lack of timeliness on decisions on VAT and trading standards, shows that the UK Government is not acting in good faith to support Scotland’s scheme, going forward. In fact, it is doing everything possible to undermine the scheme.
Circularity Scotland and I are looking at how we can take forward an alternative scheme in Scotland, because the scheme that this Parliament passed has been shot down by Westminster. We are looking at an alternative scheme, and I will report back to Parliament as soon as I can on what that alternative might be.
The UK Government has shown nothing but contempt for the Scottish Parliament in using the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to, in effect, rewrite devolved laws. As Professor Aileen McHarg has suggested, there is nothing in the 2020 act that makes Alister Jack the arbiter of what goes forward. This should have been done through the common frameworks. How much investment from Scottish business has been lost as a result of the UK Government’s misguided intervention and U-turn?
Hundreds of millions of pounds of investment from a range of businesses to prepare for the launch of the deposit return scheme are now at risk as a result of the UK Government’s 11th-hour intervention. The exact investment figures are held by industry, but published estimates suggest that retailers will invest up to £200 million and that producers have invested about £100 million in the scheme. Alongside that, Circularity Scotland contractors such as Biffa will have invested significant sums—some estimate that that investment will be £80 million.
The minister will be aware that Sight Scotland has concerns about how blind and partially sighted people will be able to access and take part in the deposit return scheme. Just last week, Sight Scotland received a letter from the minister’s officials, but it failed to address the issues that the organisation has raised. Will the minister take the concerns of Sight Scotland and others seriously and use the delay to the deposit return scheme to ensure that blind and partially sighted people can take part in the scheme?
Any deposit return scheme must of course be accessible to every person in Scotland, and that is true no matter whether people have disabilities or other impediments that make that more of a challenge. Particularly for non-sighted people or people who have difficulty with sight, the design of reverse vending machines absolutely is intended to take that into account. If a scheme is to proceed, the intention is to work with retailers and handlers to understand how they can best support customers who use manual return points. I refer the member to the equalities assessment that was undertaken as part of the deposit return scheme legislation.
The minister and the First Minister have wreaked havoc on the deposit return scheme. Can the minister tell us today when the missing gateway review will be published?
A series of independent gateway reviews have been undertaken throughout the design of the deposit return scheme, with the most recent having been carried out in March. The Scottish Government is considering carefully the recommendations from that review and will share those recommendations and its response with the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee soon. Gateway review teams normally speak to between 12 and 15 interviewees. For this latest review, reviewers spoke to 45 people, which included CSL and a range of producers, retailers, wholesalers and hospitality representatives.
This is a shambles that has been years in the making. All last week and over the weekend, we heard threats from the Scottish Government that, if the UK Government did not back down, DRS would be dead in the water. It now appears that the Scottish Government has backed down. Does the minister believe that that will add to the confusion and the loss of confidence in the proposals that the Government is trying to bring forward?
Liam McArthur will appreciate that the UK Government has now blocked the scheme that was passed by the Scottish Parliament. The devolved powers of this Parliament were used in 2020 to legislate for a deposit return scheme. That scheme included glass and clearly set a 20p deposit, and there was guidance to industry on how the scheme was to be interpreted.
The UK Government has used—some might say abused—the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to impose changes on this devolved matter at a very late stage in development of the deposit return scheme. We now have to properly assess those changes. Our scheme, as passed by the Scottish Parliament, cannot go forward—we know that that is the case. Can an alternative scheme be made from the pieces that the UK Government has left us? That is what we are rapidly assessing with business stakeholders and Circularity Scotland.
As I understand it, in Wales, Mark Drakeford is taking a firm line and arguing that glass should be included in the scheme there. Can the minister explain why Scottish Labour is being so weak on the matter?
Indeed—
The answer should be on matters for which the minister has general responsibility.
Minister, you can address the question to the extent that you address matters for which the Scottish Government has general responsibility.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Labour used to be a champion of 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, chose to do so. That is exactly what Labour in Wales is doing by designing its own DRS to include glass because it, too, understands the environmental and economic benefits of doing so.
Wales is at an earlier stage than we are on deposit return. It has not yet passed its regulations and, once it comes to drafting its regs and doing the detailed design, Wales will very likely face the same barriers that we are now dealing with.
What would be the impact on glass recycling, including non-scheme articles, of rolling out separate kerbside glass collection to councils that currently do not have that service?
Brian Whittle will appreciate that we are assessing the substantial change to the deposit return scheme that has been imposed on us by the UK Government under which it cannot include glass. We are trying to figure out whether the scheme is viable and can go forward in Scotland, and that includes looking at the impact on recycling rates.
We know that kerbside recycling rates tend to get glass up to only about 63 per cent; deposit return can get glass recycling up to 90 per cent. That means a substantial reduction in broken glass litter and in carbon emissions. That is how we know that including glass is a good idea, but now that we cannot include glass in our scheme we will have to undertake a detailed assessment.
After the delays and grandstanding between the UK and Scottish Governments, we deserve better than this. To get a viable DRS, the UK and the Scottish Governments should get around the table as quickly as possible, especially given that Circularity Scotland said today that the scheme could go ahead.
Over the past two weeks, I have asked the minister repeatedly whether she has explored all the options. The minister will be aware that, over the weekend, I wrote to her urging her to meet GS1 UK, which is the only company in the UK that can provide globally recognised barcodes. The minister has failed to meet GS1 UK, which is a not-for-profit company that has a solution that could, at least, reduce the burdens on industry in delivering the scheme, and, at most, change the conversation on the internal market exemption.
Will the minister commit to exploring every solution and to meet GS1 UK immediately, so that we can get a scheme that works?
I have reassured the member repeatedly that we have looked at every possible option for carrying forward the scheme as passed by the Scottish Parliament. We know that that is not possible, due to the limited exclusion passed under the Internal Market Act 2020. Today, I will write to the secretary of state to ask for an urgent meeting tomorrow to deal with the operational matters and see whether we can get the UK Government around the table to discuss those things. I am not hopeful, given its track record: how long it took to make a decision on VAT, the fact that it still has not made a decision on trading standards and the fact that it has changed its mind very late in the day both on glass and on whether devolved nations should be able to set their own scope.
I also remind the member that barcodes are not part of the regulations passed by the Scottish Parliament and are therefore not part of the legislation that we can consider here. Because it has different powers, the UK Government may include barcodes in its scheme, but we do not know that because it has not passed the regulations yet. Therefore, it would not really help anything to discuss that with a barcode manufacturer.
Can the minister confirm that she is drawing up a modified scheme without glass and does she think that that modified scheme could be up and running by March next year?
Graham Simpson will appreciate that removal of glass is a substantial change. The question that he asks is what I am working through right now. The Conservatives are betraying their own commitments on DRS because they see undermining the Scottish Parliament as more important.
To decide whether we can go ahead with an alternate scheme without glass is a very substantial decision, so the First Minister and I will meet industry representatives tomorrow and I am attempting to get a meeting with the UK Government urgently to decide whether it is feasible for us to go forward with that.
Last week, Labour’s First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, criticised the UK Government for reneging on a 2019 agreement that allowed Scotland and Wales to establish our own deposit return schemes that include glass. Westminster’s Tory Government wants Wales and Scotland to wait for an English scheme, but what assurances has the minister had that there will actually be a DRS in England? When will it be up and running and will the rules for interoperability be?
Mark Ruskell will appreciate that I am unable to answer that question because the UK Government has not passed its regulations. It gives a date of 2025, but we have not seen any sort of critical pathway to making that decision. The UK Government has not got a scheme administrator in place and it has not even determined whether the deposit will be 20p to match ours, so it cannot even answer basic questions about interoperability. It says that we have to adhere to its rules but it has not written the rules yet. Will the deposit be 20p? Will the producer fees change? We cannot answer that because the UK Government has taken away our power to do so.
South Uist Ferry Withdrawal (Demonstrations)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the reported demonstrations in South Uist due to ferry withdrawal. (S6T-01426)
Before I move to the very important matter of ferry services to South Uist, I want to acknowledge the news this morning that my colleague, the former Minister for Transport, has tendered his resignation from post. I thank him for his work, wish him well and ask that he is given the space to recover from the matters that he has very bravely spoken of this morning.
Moving to the substantive question and the important matter at hand, I acknowledge very clearly the dissatisfaction and upset that is felt. Ministers are very well aware of the strength of feeling from engagement that we have had, including during the former transport minister’s recent visit to South Uist, and from meetings, including with the South Uist business impact group.
Technical issues with major vessels and delays to the annual overhaul programme have led to cancellations of sailings and, regrettably, some communities have been more impacted than others. Ultimately, the people of South Uist evidenced that by their demonstration on Sunday. The fact that they have lost confidence in CalMac Ferries is clear to see.
We have expressed to CalMac our disappointment at how communications and engagement have been handled, and I have been very clear that no stone is to be left unturned in addressing the issues for the Uists. I have asked urgently that CalMac review the route prioritisation matrix to ensure that it reflects the socioeconomic impacts that pertain, in particular, to fragile communities such as those on South Uist.
I also wish Kevin Stewart a speedy recovery.
I say to the cabinet secretary that there is not a problem with comms; there is a problem due to lack of ferries. The blame for the lack of ferries sits squarely at the door of her Government. She must stop passing the buck, because South Uist has lost confidence not in CalMac but in the Scottish Government.
The cabinet secretary must be concerned when she sees one third of the population of South Uist demonstrating their displeasure. If 200,000 local people descended on the Parliament protesting, the Scottish Government could not possibly ignore them. Businesses are going to the wall because of the Government’s failure to provide ferries. Will she now compensate them?
Operational matters on the running of the ferry network are for CalMac, so it is only right that I reflect that in Parliament. However, I will not prevaricate on the point that pressure in our ferry network is as acute as it has ever been.
Ministers empathise deeply with communities that have been affected. We understand their frustration and, for our part and within what we are responsible for, we are working in the here and now to press CalMac on the prioritisation matrix, which I mentioned in my answer to Ms Grant’s initial question, as well as on communications—I understand that that is, perhaps, the tip of the iceberg; it is nonetheless important for day-to-day activities—and on ensuring that disruption is as minimal as possible. All the while, the Government is working to find and procure new additional vessels for the network. Six vessels are due on the network in the coming years, beginning as soon as the spring.
Rhoda Grant has raised the matter of compensation, which has, understandably and rightly, been raised many times with the Government. We have looked at the penalty deductions that are made in relation to failures in the ferry network; my view is that we should continue to use that money to reinvest in the network. I will give an example of how that is working to date. The £9 million cost of the charter of the MV Alfred, which is currently providing resilience on the route to Arran, is partly funded by performance deductions from CalMac of around £1 million to £3 million a year. It is right that that money continues to be used for that purpose, because we can see how it adds resilience to the network.
The cabinet secretary is well aware that CalMac cannot build ferries; the Scottish Government can build ferries. She says that the Government paid £9 million for a charter; it could have bought the boat for £9 million.
Here in Edinburgh, businesses were rightly compensated for disruption when the tram line was being built. The Government clawed back £2.5 million in penalties from CalMac last year alone. The cabinet secretary could create a resilience fund from the money that was clawed back to help businesses that are going to the wall right now because of her Government’s incompetence.
It seems to me that it is a case of, “Out of sight, out of mind.” If it happened in Edinburgh, we would not get away with it, but when it happens in South Uist, we just forget it.
I will continue to engage with communities on the matter and, indeed, to press CalMac to do likewise. What communities want most, however, is a ferry service that is reliable for them so that they can get on with their lives without having to worry about disruption. I flatly acknowledge that that disruption is causing upset.
That is why, as I have outlined, we are, within the powers that are in the gift of the Scottish Government—and while acknowledging that operational matters are for CalMac—doing two sets of work. First, we are pressing CalMac in the here and now to improve resilience in the service, to improve communications and to test the prioritisation matrix to ensure that it takes into account all matters that are important to islanders.
At the same time, we are using powers that are within our gift to procure vessels and bring them on to the network. For example, since re-election, the Government has bought and deployed an additional vessel—the MV Loch Frisa—chartered the MV Arrow to provide additional resilience and capacity, and commissioned two new vessels for Islay and two for the Little Minch routes. That is before we speak of vessels 801 and 802, which are due to be delivered from Ferguson Marine Engineering Limited.
I also recognise the work that was done by Mr Stewart as minister—not least on his recent visit to South Uist.
The community of South Uist has had reason to feel that CalMac has been treating it with disdain. CalMac says that the decision to abandon ferry services to the island was made, essentially, because of its prioritisation process, but that process takes no account of the fact that the same route, the same community, the same businesses and the same individuals constantly bear the brunt of disruption. It takes no account of the relative economic fragility of the place and it takes no account of island circumstances. What can be done to challenge and reform the matrix or the process that is depriving South Uist of its ferry, and to ensure that South Uist stops being the default route for cancellation decisions every time there is disruption?
I mentioned that the former transport minister had met the South Uist business impact group on Thursday last week. Discussions at that meeting centred principally on some of the issues that Dr Allan has rightly narrated, including the route prioritisation matrix. To address those issues, ministers have pressed CalMac on the need to review the current matrix to ensure that Dr Allan’s suggestions are included in it. I expect that to be done in deep consultation with the ferry community board and community representatives.
This afternoon, we will meet CalMac for an update on the substance of the work that we have asked it to do and on how it is ensuring that communities are consulted as part of the process.
On behalf of Conservative members, I wish Kevin Stewart a swift recovery.
Several small businesses from the Uists have contacted me calling for compensation for lost earnings that have resulted from the ferry crisis, and have stated that regular cancellations and rerouting have resulted in cancelled bookings and real fear for their future. I have asked this of the First Minister and I have asked Kevin Stewart, and I now ask the cabinet secretary. For the sake of those people and their livelihoods, will the minister revisit the Government’s position on compensation?
It would be wrong of me to be as candid as I have been about how much we understand the frustration of island communities but then to close myself off from discussions about anything that communities are calling for. I therefore recommit ministers to having conversations such as we have had with the South Uist business impact group and are having with CalMac.
However, I reiterate what I said previously on compensation: I believe that islanders want most of all for the Scottish Government and CalMac to focus on improving the service for the here and now and for the future, so that reliability on the service is not something that communities have to worry about daily. I have narrated already how some of the penalty deductions that are made from CalMac are utilised to provide the very resilience that everyone so desires. I believe that that is the right way to continue to address financing improvements, although I am listening to everyone who has a view on the matter.
Previous
Time for Reflection