The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-18004, on the approval of a Scottish statutory instrument. I invite Jamie Hepburn to move the motion on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Deposit and Return Scheme for Scotland (Designation of Scheme Administrator) Order 2025 [draft] be approved.—[Jamie Hepburn]
17:08
Although we will support the SSI, we have serious concerns about what has been put in front of us and the lack of detail that we are being asked to approve. I raised those concerns at committee, and I will go through some of them again today.
There is no detail on the level of deposit or who can alter it; on the different deposit rates for different sized containers; or on the level of producer registration fees. There is a lack of detail on closed-loop premises and no mention of the costs for or impact on the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, or of the rural exemptions and coverage.
Today, we are being asked to approve a deposit return scheme that excludes glass. I do not have a problem with that, but I have a problem with the amount of taxpayer money that has been wasted to get us to this point. We could have launched a deposit return scheme that did not include glass two years ago, because an exemption from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 was granted. If we had done that, the system administrator would not have collapsed with debts of £86 million, a big chunk of which was made up of Scottish taxpayers’ cash that had been lent through the Scottish National Investment Bank. All of that has been lost. We would not be in a position in which Biffa is taking legal action against the Scottish Government for £166 million. If it is successful, that will mean that less money will be available for our national health service, for policing and for our schools.
The member omits from his remarks that the United Kingdom Government granted very limited exemptions to the internal market act, one of the conditions of which was that the deposit not be determined—not only that the plastic be removed but, specifically, that the deposit not be determined.
It is not possible to launch a deposit return scheme without knowing what the deposit is, so the member is not being accurate in how he represents the reasons why the internal market act prevented the launch of Scotland’s scheme.
I thank Lorna Slater for that intervention—the system’s administrator Circularity Scotland was clear that it was happy enough for the scheme to take place.
If that had gone ahead, we would not have been in the situation in which we have lost so much money—[Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
—and we have got such big exposure from Biffa.
One must ask oneself: why is the devolved Government happy to have a DRS that excludes glass now, but to have ditched its own scheme—at huge cost to the Scottish taxpayer—back in 2023? The only logical presumption is that not to go ahead in 2023, at huge cost to taxpayers, was to generate grievance. To create grievance, at huge cost to the taxpayer, just shows what a disgusting organisation the Scottish National Party is.
When it comes to net zero, this devolved Government is all talk. It is happy for diesel-fuelled lorries to take our waste to England at huge cost to our taxpayers. Eighteen months ago, the SNP boasted that world leaders would be calling it, asking for advice on net zero. The only people who are phoning it now are waste companies in England asking for contracts. What an incompetent Government it is. [Interruption.]
Thank you—members, let us carry out our proceedings in an atmosphere of courtesy and respect. I call Fiona Hyslop, Cabinet Secretary for Transport, to respond.
17:11
I thank the member for the further opportunity to discuss the draft deposit return scheme designation order. To Mr Carlaw, I point out that I have been preparing to answer this question on behalf of my colleague, Ms Martin—who is on Government business elsewhere—in a quieter spot than the noise of the Opposition front benches.
This instrument, if approved, will confirm UK Deposit Management Organisation Ltd—UK DMO Ltd—as the scheme administrator for Scotland’s DRS and set out its obligations and functions. As an industry-led scheme, the operation, design and delivery of Scotland’s DRS is the responsibility of a scheme administrator. This order provides the scheme administrator with the powers needed to make decisions about how the scheme should run, such as to set the level of the deposit and operate an effective return point network. It also places requirements on the scheme administrator to meet the scheme’s targets, to act on behalf of industry and to protect consumers.
Organisations were invited to apply to be the DRS’s administrator in Scotland; we received a single, industry-backed application from UK DMO Ltd. Following assessment of that application, Scottish ministers have put forward UK DMO Ltd as the scheme administrator for Scotland, and it is named as such in the order. The same organisation has been appointed as the scheme administrator in England and Northern Ireland, ensuring that there is a consistent approach to delivery across the three nations.
UK DMO Ltd is a private company made up of member organisations from across industry. I am pleased that it has wasted no time in preparing for the role. It has written to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee to express strong support for the scheme, outline the work that it is already undertaking to prepare for the scheme’s implementation, and emphasise its commitment to implementing a DRS that works for everyone, from the largest producers to the smallest shops in island communities.
This order will enable an industry-led DRS in Scotland and ensure consistent delivery of DRS across Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. I urge members to approve the instrument.
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-18005, on the approval of an SSI. I ask Jamie Hepburn to move the motion on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Deposit and Return Scheme for Scotland Amendment Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.—[Jamie Hepburn]
17:14
I want to make clear that deposit return schemes can have a positive effect on the recycling rates for those items in the scheme, and a limited effect on overall recycling rates.
The schemes work well and successfully across the globe but not in Scotland, although it is worth while pointing out that Scotland—indeed, the UK—would be the first to introduce such a scheme with advanced kerbside recycling. I appreciate that the cabinet secretary is not directly responsible for the scheme as it is now, but we nevertheless have a duty in this place to stand up for Scotland’s interests, and I have several concerns.
The legislation that is before us has a registration application date before 1 August 2027; however, what if the scheme were to be delayed? Scheme materials are exempt from extended producer responsibility for packaging, which means that non-scheme articles will pay. That will be particularly challenging if there is a delay. Local authorities will lose at least £1,500 per tonne on dry mixed recyclates. How will they be compensated? How will kerbside collections be affected? What will be the impact on local authority recycling rates? Will there be job losses?
How will small independent retailers be supported—for example, by accessing reverse vending machines or incentive schemes? I note the exemption. What will that mean for using glass as a packaging product, particularly as we have a glass recycling plant in Scotland? Will Scottish waste-management small and medium-sized enterprises be part of the scheme and be able to bid to access that waste? Will waste that is collected in Scotland be allocated UK wide? That means that Scotland will not have an opportunity to utilise the value of that waste and, for example, set up plastic recycling facilities.
Perhaps the cabinet secretary would raise that with the UK Government. I have been unable to obtain a meeting.
I call Fiona Hyslop, cabinet secretary—
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. From my hearing of what the cabinet secretary said, she told Parliament that there is representation from small businesses on the board of UK DMO board. I believe that not to be true—the reason being that the Scottish Grocers Federation, which sought to be on that board, was refused, and its contention is that there is no small business representation on the board, despite the fact that small grocery shops around the UK do not have the space to put in reverse vending machines and do not have the logistical capacity to deal viably with the scheme, and that all the flaws—I believe that there are around 40—in the Scottish scheme are manifest in the UK scheme. If it is the case that the cabinet secretary has misinformed the Parliament, what remedies do I have to correct that important error?
As an experienced member, Mr Ewing will be aware of the mechanisms that exist and of the fact that the content of members’ contributions is not ordinarily a matter for the chair. We will continue. I call the cabinet secretary.
17:18
I thank Maurice Golden for the opportunity to again discuss the draft Deposit and Return Scheme for Scotland Amendment Regulations 2025. DRS forms part of the Scottish Government’s response to the global climate emergency and brings environmental and economic benefits. I think that the member recognises the importance of that, as do 57 other countries that have a deposit return scheme.
The amendments that are proposed follow intervention from the former UK Government with respect to Scotland’s DRS. That was originally contrary to the wishes of this Parliament.
Some of the criticisms and concerns that the member has levelled could equally be placed at the door of the UK Government’s DRS. That was the policy of his own party. The scheme has now been introduced by the current Labour Government.
However, it is important to hear his questions about the examination of the details of the scheme, which will come from the establishment of the approval that is in the regulations in the order. That will be the responsibility of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.
In relation to the point by Fergus Ewing, I refer him to the Official Report. He made an accusation that I said something about the company that I do not think is accurate. I said:
“UK DMO Ltd is a private company made up of member organisations from across industry.”
I am sure that it will be paying attention to the debate and will have heard what he said. I think that it is, therefore, unfair to accuse me of something that I did not say.
People have concerns about lack of certainty and say that there are too many unknowns, and Conservative members are saying that they cannot support the amendments because of that, I assume, but that is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the scheme should work. DRS is, and always has been, industry-led. Therefore, the scheme administration is responsible for its operational design and delivery. That has long been the preference of industry and Douglas Lumsden’s own party at UK level, and it is what the regulations achieve.
Once the DRS scheme administrator is formally designated, it is responsible for implementing DRS on behalf of industry. The scheme administrator must provide the details that the member seeks in its operational plan by March 2026, and it has written to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee to set out how it will do so.
Some of the other issues mentioned are those that the committee will examine. The changes that are being considered today largely impact on how DRS will interact with other schemes across the UK, not on the fundamental design of the scheme, which was subject to extensive consultation and scrutiny by the Parliament. Indeed, I recall doing so when I was deputy convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.
We have worked closely with industry on those changes, as well as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Welsh Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland. Regulations also require the scheme administrator to consult on its operational decisions. Once again, it has written to the committee to underline its commitment to do so.
Changes were implemented in 2023, and I am sure that the cabinet secretary will be available to answer any other questions that might not be addressed at this time. Those were necessary changes to the legislative framework for DRS in Scotland, in line with the feedback that we have received from industry, to ensure that the schemes in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland can launch jointly on 1 October 2027.
I urge the chamber to approve the SSI.
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
The next item of business is consideration of two Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move motions S6M-18006, on approval of an SSI, and motion S6M-18007, on designation of a lead committee.
Motions moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Environmental Regulation (Enforcement Measures) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2025 [draft] be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the Finance and Public Administration Committee be designated as the lead committee in consideration of the Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.—[Jamie Hepburn]
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
Previous
Business MotionNext
Decision Time