Yes. Thank you, convener. I will be brief.
The committee has heard evidence from stakeholders on the deposit return scheme plans. That builds on the extensive dialogue that my officials and I have had with partners over many months—indeed, it would probably be more accurate to say years. There seems to be a general acknowledgement that, if correctly targeted and properly planned, deposit and return can drive the circular economy improvements that we want and contribute to our net-zero ambitions. Such schemes have been key to the success of several of our European neighbours in increasing the quantity and quality of recyclate as well as delivering wider economic benefits.
The Scottish Government’s response to the climate emergency will require decisive action across a broad range of policy areas. Our DRS proposals must be viewed in that context. Strong public support exists for our plans, and I am committed to delivering an ambitious scheme that properly responds to our current challenges.
Inevitably, there are some who are concerned about specific aspects of the scheme—notably the inclusion of glass. Our business case shows that the benefits of including glass from the outset more than offset any costs. By increasing glass recycling, we will realise significant carbon savings, reduce glass litter and create a new feedstock of high-quality material. The point about litter in particular has been somewhat lost in the debate, and it should not be overlooked. Glass litter is a blight on communities. Broken glass can and does cause physical harm to people and animals, and the issue has to be addressed.
10:30
I am also aware of arguments that we should wait for a United Kingdom scheme to be delivered. Those are not new arguments. Of course I remain open to exploring the potential for co-operation, but that means each of the other nations stepping forward and demonstrating the same level of ambition that we have. Our neighbours are still a long way behind us, and the general election casts yet further uncertainty on their plans.
I understand that DRS represents a significant change to the current supply chain arrangements, but we should take comfort from the fact that many other countries have successfully delivered deposit and return. Each of them will have faced its own particular challenges and, to my knowledge, all of those have been successfully overcome. It is surely not beyond us to do likewise.
I am committed to working with industry, non-governmental organisations and others to make DRS a success, and I am grateful to all those who are represented on our implementation advisory group and its working groups. Those spaces provide the opportunity to get to grips with the technical details of delivery so that solutions can be developed. Many of those solutions will ultimately be a matter for those in the industry itself, likely working together through a scheme administrator. To my mind, that is what extended producer responsibility is all about.
We are continuing to analyse the delivery programme for DRS, and we have sought input from industry stakeholders. I will reflect on that further analysis once it is complete, just as I will reflect on the committee’s views before I decide on the implementation date to be included in the final regulations. I am conscious of the need to get DRS right.
Our conversations with partners have extended to the detail of the regulations, and we will, of course, give due consideration to the committee’s feedback. I look forward to continuing the engagement once we commence scrutiny of the final regulations through the affirmative process in the new year.