Chamber and committees

Okay. I do not mean to labour the point, but I will just say that the process for getting us to where we are today seems very clunky. I find myself in a position where voting against this statutory instrument would put unbearable strains on businesses, but I also believe that there would have been a way of resolving this before Parliament went into recess, if there had been the will to do so. I find it particularly difficult to consider and approve something when I know that, as soon as I approve it—or as I am in the process of approving it—it is invalid. That is my position.

As no one else around the table wants to make a comment, you may make a closing statement, minister. You could of course waive that, if you would like to, and we would move directly to the decision. It is up to you, minister.

The committee will report on the outcome of the instrument in due course. I invite the committee to delegate authority to me, as convener, to finalise the report for publication. Is the committee happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.

We move on to agenda item 3, which is evidence on progress towards Scotland’s deposit return scheme.

At our meeting on 25 April, the committee agreed to invite the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity to provide a further update on progress in implementing the deposit return scheme.

The draft Deposit and Return Scheme for Scotland Amendment Regulations 2023 were laid in Parliament on 17 May. The instrument is laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve it? before? it ?comes ?into force. It gives effect to the announcement of an intended postponement of the start date of the scheme from August 2023 to March 2024. The Scottish Government has since announced that it proposes to delay the launch date to October 2025, stating that the scheme

“cannot go ahead as ... planned.”—[Official Report, 6 June 2023; c 3.]

The minister wrote to the committee about her intention to revisit the draft regulations that are on today’s agenda. We have therefore allocated just over an hour for this evidence session to allow some discussion with the minister about recent developments and the Scottish Government’s proposal to revisit the scheme. Following the evidence session, the committee will be invited at the next agenda item to consider a motion to approve the instrument.

Minister, I am sorry for keeping you waiting this morning, but we had some matters to iron out first. I welcome you to the committee and, for those who do not know—I am sure that everyone does—you are the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity. I also welcome, from the Scottish Government, Ailsa Heine, solicitor; David McPhee, deputy director of the deposit and return scheme; Euan Page, head of UK frameworks; and Haydn Thomas, head of the deposit and return scheme policy unit. Thank you for joining us.

We are also joined by Maurice Golden. Maurice, I will offer you the opportunity to ask questions near the end of our session.

I remind everyone that the officials can speak under this agenda item, so if members require answers on anything in the regulations, they will need to raise their question under this item.

Minister, you now have the opportunity to make a short opening statement.

I will make an observation, minister. On 14 March, you told the committee that the gateway review was imminent. On 24 March, you said in a letter to the committee that you would make it available. You also advised us that you had:

“committed to provide an indication of when findings from the March Gateway Review will be shared. The review report is currently in the process of being finalised. Therefore I will share the review findings with the committee in due course.”

On 27 April, you told us that that would be imminent. On 8 June, I wrote to you regarding a report on the instructions to the committee and asked for the gateway review to be provided as soon as possible. If a committee asks for a report in March and, by June, it still does not have it, my observation is that that is disrespectful to the committee. I make that observation with no political point. The committees in the Parliament are here for a reason. It would have helped today’s evidence session if we had had that gateway review in front of us. I am not asking you to respond, but I think that it is wrong.

I will make no further observation on that, minister, except to re-read your words to you, which are:

“I committed to provide an indication of when the findings from the March Gateway Review will be shared.”

You have shared the other documents, as you have rightly said, which the committee has been pushing for. As convener, my observation is that that has taken too long.

I was not saying that there was a chance that the scheme would go forward in 2025; I was saying that there is a chance that CSL might be needed in 2025. From a business point of view, it is a punt to continue funding that level of salaries and costs on the basis that that organisation might be part of the new scheme.

Thank you, Bob.

Was the mood music that 20p was the right level to set?

Is your view that you want to impose the level that you want on the rest of the United Kingdom, or is it that you believe that the UK should just do what you are doing?

When Abellio was in charge, there used to be the service quality incentive regime fund, which got lots of money from Abellio in fines. That was used to increase and upgrade infrastructure across the network. Does that fund still exist and do you have to contribute to it? If it does not exist, has the Scottish Government made up the moneys that have been lost from that fund?