Chamber and committees

On 12 June, the Scottish Government published, jointly with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the car use reduction policy statement, which includes a commitment to undertake a regulatory check of the existing discretionary powers for local road user charging schemes under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001. The statement was published jointly by me and Councillor Gail Macgregor, who leads for COSLA on the environment and transport. Sue Webber will be familiar with Councillor Macgregor, as she is a member of her political party.

The Scottish Government will now establish a working group that will include membership from regional transport partnerships and local authorities, including those that have sought progress on such a regulatory check to ensure that the secondary legislation from 2001 remains fit for purpose, because any road user charging scheme could be implemented only if councils wanted to use those powers from 2001. The work of that group will inform a timeline for the check.

I was not forced to change the target of a 20 per cent reduction in car kilometres by 2030. I said that it was unachievable and not wanted. Indeed, the Climate Change Committee has said that Scotland needs to reduce its car use only by 6 per cent by 2035, although some parts of Scotland might want to go further, and we might need to go further as part of our climate change plan.

To achieve the necessary shift, we have a big focus on looking at how we provide our public transport services. Under public ownership, ScotRail is one of the top-performing rail service providers in the United Kingdom. ScotRail now carries more passengers and provides more services at greater frequency than it did before it came under public ownership.

I agree that we need to have accessible and affordable public transport for people to use, but if we are serious about tackling climate change—I do not think that the Conservative Party is any more—we must take steps to protect our environment, to protect people in terms of their car use and encourage them to use electric vehicles, and to invest in our public transport system.

I, and the Government, are clear that full devolution of rail is in Scotland’s best interests, not least to deliver the services that our communities and economy need and deserve. I am proud that ScotRail in public ownership has been a success and that ScotRail’s train performance and passenger satisfaction are consistently higher than the Great Britain average.

I welcome the intent of the UK Government’s rail reform bill—I have discussed it twice with the Secretary of State for Transport—and the commitment to protect current devolution of powers and learn from the example of Scotland’s integrated approach to track and train. I want to continue to work constructively with the secretary of state to protect and enhance Scotland’s interests, but I am concerned at the lack of clarity and detail in the proposals to date.

I have repeatedly sought assurance from the Secretary of State for Transport that any decisions made by the UK Government will not dilute Scottish ministers’ existing powers. Scottish ministers will do all within our power to protect the interests of Scottish railways in order to allow us to continue to build on the success of bringing ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper into public ownership for the benefit of the people of Scotland. However, unless and until we see text in the bill that secures accountability for integrated rail services to this Parliament and this Government, that risk still exists.

During the round-table meeting that I held in the Parliament on 4 February, which the member attended, I indicated that it was my intention to provide an update on the public’s response to the consultation as soon as it was provided to me, once the responses had been collated and analysed and a report summarising the feedback had been produced. The 12-week consultation period ended on 21 February, with more than 1,400 responses received.

I thank the member for his question, which allows me to announce that I received the consultation report at the end of last week. I briefed Cabinet colleagues on its publication at the beginning of this week, and I can advise the Parliament that the consultation report will be published on Transport Scotland’s website this afternoon. I will share the link to the report with all relevant north-east and Highland constituency and regional MSPs.

As I said, at the round-table meeting that I referred to, I indicated that it was my intention to ensure that the consultation report was published as soon as possible. That is what MSPs asked me to do.

In relation to our on-going commitment to dual the A96, any decision will have to be made in the context of available, planned budgets, the impact of this week’s United Kingdom Government spending review and the Scottish Government’s infrastructure investment plan refresh, which is anticipated later in the year. I did not want to delay the publication of the consultation report, given what MSPs asked me to do. I have done what I said that I would do in February.

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.

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.

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.

I was not aware that Transport Scotland had been invited to those meetings but had not attended them. There is a difference between the promoters and those who advise me on the matter, but I will actively look into that issue.

The Scottish Government continues to support the promotion of the grade separation of the Sheriffhall roundabout as part of its £300 million commitment to the Edinburgh and south-east Scotland city region deal. I recognise that the proposed scheme is a priority for regional partners, and my officials continue to progress it through the statutory authorisation process.

Although I recognise the need for due process, I will, when it is appropriate to do so, meet a cross-party group of MSPs with an interest in this very important development. I am fully aware of their interests on behalf of their constituents, as expressed in the debate.