Chamber and committees

That substantially removes hospitality venues from the scheme, which was their request. Again, we do not think that that will interfere with accessibility. The model in other countries is that people tend to return their bottles when they buy their groceries, whether that be at a small shop or at a larger one. They do not think so much about taking their bottles back to a nightclub, for example.

The final aspect is about the right to refuse scheme packaging in certain circumstances. That is specifically in relation to businesses who sell only some types of packaging and their having to handle other types that they would not normally do. That is a more technical aspect, but it matters to some businesses.

Those are the substantial amendments to the scheme’s operation that we are considering today.

The amendments were developed over several months of discussion with industry representatives. They were asking for those five changes, so we have done as they asked. The amendments were broadly welcomed by industry as helping to make the scheme workable, which is of course why we want them to be passed and covered by regulations in Scotland, so that we can demonstrate to the other UK nations that we have a workable scheme that has industry support behind it. We had not intended to bring in any more regulations to define the Scottish scheme but, depending on how the politics over the internal market act play out over the next couple of years, we might have to lodge further amendments should the UK Government impose matters upon us. At the moment, the present regulations fully comprise the Scottish scheme.

That is correct.

The parliamentary process is the process, and we need to make sure that it is followed. The number of scrutiny days and so forth is set out, and it is not something that I intend to challenge.

Last week, I told the Parliament that the Scottish Government was left with no other option than to delay the launch of Scotland’s deposit return scheme until October 2025 at the latest. That is a direct result of the United Kingdom Government’s decision of 26 May, which was reaffirmed on 5 June, to refuse Scotland a full exclusion from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. Instead, the UK Government agreed to a partial and temporary exclusion, which imposed additional, significant conditions on our scheme, including the removal of glass.

The Scottish Parliament legislated in May 2020 for an all-inclusive deposit return scheme. We did so because the economic and environmental evidence is stronger and because there was agreement across the UK nations that all the schemes would include glass.

The IMA was brought in after our DRS regulations. As a result, we sought a broad exclusion from it to cover our single-use plastic ban and the DRS. We have therefore been in discussions for almost two years to agree an exclusion for the DRS in line with the agreed common framework process. The inclusion of glass in our scheme was not questioned during that process. Indeed, as recently as January this year, the UK Government’s consultation response confirmed that it was for each of the devolved nations to decide on the scope of their deposit return schemes.

It is therefore deeply regrettable that the UK Government chose to unilaterally impose a partial and temporary exclusion at the 11th hour by removing glass and imposing conditions with which we would have to align, but giving no detail on what we are expected to align with.

Since then, we have engaged intensively with delivery partners and the industry to understand how the UK Government’s requirements have affected their preparations for the launch of Scotland’s DRS. The overwhelming feedback from industry, publicly and privately, is that they can no longer prepare for a March 2024 launch because of the significant uncertainty that has been caused by the UK Government’s conditions.

I remain wholly committed to introducing the DRS in Scotland and I remain keen to work with the other UK nations in a spirit of collaboration, not imposition, to see how we can maximise interoperability while recognising the decisions that the Scottish Parliament has made.

The regulations that the committee is considering today were laid on 17 May, before the UK Government’s last-minute decision on the internal market act. The changes that are before the committee are sought and welcomed by industry, which is why we are discussing them. The one exception, of course, is the date. Without the changes that are being made to the regulations today, the go-live date would still be 16 August this year. The regulations change that to 1 March next year. As I have explained, the UK Government’s intervention means that that date, in turn, is no longer possible and I am committing to bring before the Parliament further regulations in line with parliamentary procedures and timelines to change the go-live date to October 2025.

I recognise that the process is more convoluted than any of us would wish, but that is where the UK Government’s intervention in wholly devolved matters has left us. I am happy to take questions.

I do not have that figure.

That depends on the structure of CSL, going forward. It depends on whether, for example, it tries to apply to be the DMO for the UK or waits for a Scottish scheme. Producers might like to continue to develop IT systems. There are many pathways forward for CSL; it is working that out right now with its members.

That matter is between CSL and its producers.

It is not a figure that I have. It is an internal figure for CSL and it is working with its members.

The UK Government has had the opportunity to raise concerns at any time in the past three years, since our regulation was passed. I meet my counterparts at DEFRA monthly, when we discuss exactly those matters, and that level of detail has never been raised.

As I have already said, as recently as January, the UK Government was restating its position that the scope for deposit return schemes was a matter for the devolved nations. At no time before January, since the regulations were laid, did the UK raise any concerns about the details of Scotland’s scheme, although we all had an agreement that we would work together to make sure that the schemes were interoperable.

Of course, it is to everybody’s advantage to ensure that those schemes work well together. However, there is a big difference between ensuring that schemes work well together and being told that you have to comply with something that does not exist yet or even that you have to comply with something that has been created in Westminster and then imposed on us—in a devolved area.