Extracts from Scottish Parliament Questions to the First Minister - Deposit Return - Mar 2
|
Deposit return Scheme 1. Douglas Ross (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
By midnight on Tuesday, businesses in Scotland were legally
required to sign up to the Scottish National Party-Green Deposit
return scheme. Thousands of producers rightly decided not to,
because the scheme is an absolute shambles. Lorna Slater, the
minister in charge, said that just 664 businesses had registered,
but she refused six times in the chamber yesterday to say how many
businesses should have...Request free
trial
Deposit return Scheme 1. Douglas Ross (Highlands and Islands) (Con) By midnight on Tuesday, businesses in Scotland were legally required to sign up to the Scottish National Party-Green Deposit return scheme. Thousands of producers rightly decided not to, because the scheme is an absolute shambles. Lorna Slater, the minister in charge, said that just 664 businesses had registered, but she refused six times in the chamber yesterday to say how many businesses should have signed up. Will the First Minister give us that answer now—how many businesses should have signed up to her Government’s Deposit return scheme? The First Minister (Nicola Sturgeon) First, when a big change is introduced, it is understandable that there will be concerns about it. I have deep respect for the concerns that have been raised by business, and the Government will continue to work with business to address those concerns, but, frankly, the sheer opportunism of some Opposition parties that have rightly supported a deposit—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer (Alison Johnstone) Let us hear the First Minister. Thank you. They have rightly supported a Deposit return scheme and have previously criticised the Government for taking too long to introduce one, so their opportunism in now indulging in knee-jerk opposition is frankly breathtaking. So, too—I will use a parliamentary term that I believe is polite enough—is the blatant distortion of some Opposition politicians. Yes, I am talking about Alister Jack in particular. To come back to the point—this is an important point—the number of companies in the drinks industry inevitably changes over time. At the outset of introducing the scheme, it was estimated that there were about 4,500 companies—[Interruption.] Members, let us hear the First Minister. Thank you. However, significantly fewer than that will have to register because, once groups of companies registering under one registration are identified, the estimated number of individual producers and importers will be less than 2,000. However, that is not actually the most relevant statistic. The most relevant statistic is the share of the market—the percentage of products that are included—and more than 90 per cent are now included in the scheme. [Interruption.] Finally, if I were to state that in the opposite way—if I were to stand here and say that 90 per cent of producers were registered but that that covered only about 20 per cent of the market—that would be a problem, because that would be a seriously problematic way of approaching this. We will continue to progress with the scheme— Briefly, please. —because it is for the benefit of our environment, and we will do that responsibly, because that is what people across Scotland have a right to expect. First Minister, when you are in a hole, stop digging. Surely, either you or some of your many, many officials watched Lorna Slater— Please speak through the chair. —being absolutely unable to answer a basic, but very important, question yesterday. We need to know how many businesses and producers the First Minister’s Government expected to sign up to the scheme, given that we know that only 664 did so by the deadline. It is a very simple number. Either the First Minister knows it but is refusing to tell members in the chamber, or she does not know, and I think that members deserve an answer. The First Minister says that she has “deep respect” for businesses across Scotland. Well, businesses are giving the Government a message, loud and clear: the Scottish Government’s Deposit return scheme is a complete disaster. The Scottish Wholesale Association said that it could be a “car crash”; UKHospitality Scotland says that the scheme is “flawed”; Innis & Gunn says that it is “unworkable”; and, last night, after listening to the minister’s statement, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce stated that businesses’ concerns have been “completely ignored”— a “car crash”, “flawed” and “unworkable”, with the voice of businesses across Scotland “ignored”. Even at this late stage, will the First Minister finally, just once, listen to Scottish businesses and pause the scheme? The last time that the Government announced a delay to the scheme, necessitated by the pandemic, Conservatives were among the first to criticise it. That is what I mean when I talk about sheer opportunism and knee-jerk opposition. However, that is what we have come to expect from the Conservatives. We will continue to act responsibly. I come back to the central point in Douglas Ross’s question, because it is important. I gave him an answer in my first response, and I also pointed out that anyone who looks at this rationally will see that it is the number of bottles or the percentage of products that are covered that matters the most. The vast majority of products are produced by a relatively small number of producers. As of yesterday, more than 90 per cent of the market share was covered—[Interruption.] Thank you. That is the crucial point. If it were the reverse, that would be a problem. We will continue to do as we have been doing. A range of concerns have already been responded to in order to reduce costs. Producer fees are 8 per cent, 30 per cent or 40 per cent lower than originally planned for glass, plastic or metal containers. Day 1 payments for producers have been reduced, and we will continue to liaise with business responsibly and sensibly. Let us not lose sight of the central point, which is the scheme’s purpose and objectives. It will reduce littering by a third, increase recycling rates of single-use drinks containers towards 90 per cent and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 4 million tonnes over 25 years, which is the equivalent of taking 83,000 cars off the road. This is about the environment. It used to be the case that the Conservatives pretended to care about the environment— Briefly, please. —but it seems that those days are long gone. It is very clear that the First Minister is ignoring Scottish businesses again. She says that the opposition to the scheme and the calls to pause it are sheer political opportunism, so I would hate to be the health secretary sat next to her—there is going to be some more finger wagging coming in a minute. We know that Humza Yousaf, Ash Regan and Kate Forbes have all said that the Deposit return scheme should be delayed—that is political opportunism at the heart of the Scottish Government. [Interruption.] Fuck’s sake. I suspend business.
12:08 Meeting suspended. We will recommence. I call Douglas Ross for his third question. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I have to say that these constant interruptions to First Minister’s question time are getting very tiresome. We are here, as democratically elected MSPs, to put questions to the First Minister. The people who are watching and who want to hear the questions and answers are getting pretty fed up with this childish behaviour, which means that questions get disrupted like that. I was kind of on a roll, explaining the total political opportunism of the SNP. We spoke about Humza Yousaf. We spoke about Ash Regan. Let us now speak about Kate Forbes. Kate Forbes said that the Deposit return scheme, which the First Minister has just defended over the past two questions, could create “economic carnage”—and that is, in fact, one of the more tame things that Kate Forbes has said about the SNP’s record. There is just one wee problem: Kate Forbes is the SNP’s Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy. The SNP’s record is Kate Forbes’s record. When the SNP Government was slow in paying out Covid grants to businesses, Kate Forbes was running the schemes; when companies demanded that the SNP reset its anti-business agenda, Kate Forbes was the minister who was not listening; and when the ferry scandal ran even further aground, Kate Forbes was fully on board. The new Kate Forbes seems to be saying that the old Kate Forbes is not up to the job. So, I ask the First Minister: which one does she agree with—the Kate Forbes with a terrible record in government or the Kate Forbes who says that this Government has a terrible record? First, Douglas Ross said that he was “on a roll”. I am not sure whether he meant rolling down the hill, but that seems to be what that question was. [Interruption.] Excuse me, First Minister. We will hear the First Minister. I said last week that Douglas Ross was seeming awful scared of Humza Yousaf. This week, it seems that he is also very scared of Kate Forbes, which says to me that whoever is standing here in my place in a few weeks’ time will keep the Conservatives firmly where they belong: in opposition in Scottish politics. To go back to the Deposit return scheme, this Government—and I, for as long as I am First Minister—will continue to work to introduce sensible schemes that protect the interests of business but that also protect our environment, because we have a deep responsibility to do that. I also point out, again, that the introduction of a Deposit return scheme is in no way unprecedented. Similar schemes are already operational in many countries and territories around the world. Indeed, I understand that some of the companies that are raising concerns—as they have a right to do here in Scotland—are part of the schemes in other countries around the world. I read in the newspaper today that the Conservative United Kingdom Government is about to announce its own scheme, perhaps as soon as tomorrow, which no doubt will have Douglas Ross squirming, as he often does when his colleagues in London make life difficult for him. We will continue to be responsible. We will liaise and engage with business, but we will also take steps to protect our environment and make sure that the cost of dealing with waste—which, of course, has to be met—is dealt with fairly. That is what this is all about. May I begin this question with an apology, Presiding Officer? It has been brought to my attention that I perhaps used industrial language in response to the protesters who interrupted the session earlier. To you, to members and to everyone listening—including, probably, my mother—I apologise for that. [Interruption.] Christine Grahame is asking what I said, but I promise that I will not repeat it. I just wanted to apologise to you, Presiding Officer, and to members. Let us get back to where we were. I was asking the First Minister about the leadership election and the SNP candidates, which the First Minister does not seem to want to talk about. That is no wonder, because the contest is an absolute bin fire. The SNP is so split and divided that it even tried to ban the media from watching the hustings. The only thing that unites the candidates who are seeking to replace Nicola Sturgeon is independence, and the candidates’ plans are even more reckless than Nicola Sturgeon’s de facto referendum. Last night, Kate Forbes revealed that she wants to hold a referendum just three months after the next general election—three months—when there are so many bigger issues facing the country. Kate Forbes thinks that a Deposit return scheme would cause “economic carnage” but that holding another referendum to break up a 300-year-old union would be a breeze. Does the First Minister really think that anybody in Scotland will find Kate Forbes’s plans credible? What we found out in that question from Douglas Ross is that his so-called “roll” came to a crashing halt pretty quickly. I will share some news with Douglas Ross, the chamber and, indeed, the country, although I am not sure that it will come as any surprise to the country. The SNP is united in favouring Scottish independence, and I think that we are going to see the country increasingly united behind independence as the best way to free ourselves from the impact of Tory Governments—or, indeed, from the impact of Labour Governments, which are often indistinguishable from Tory Governments—and be in charge of our own affairs and destiny, for example, by getting back into the European Union. I very much look forward to the vigour of that debate in the years to come. I am also confident that whoever stands here in my place in just a few weeks’ time will continue the SNP’s outstanding record of success. [Interruption.] Thank you, members. Whoever stands here in my place will make sure that the SNP continues to occupy these benches and take forward decisions for the good of the people of Scotland, even when those are tough decisions. Douglas Ross and his colleagues will stay where they are, or—who knows?—perhaps, in years to come, they will be over there. Scottish National Party Leadership Election 2. Anas Sarwar (Glasgow) (Lab) We are in the midst of a cost of living crisis that is hitting people hard; a national health service crisis that is pushing staff to breaking point and putting patients’ lives at risk; and a wider economic crisis that is leading to business closures across Scotland. That crisis has been made worse by a flawed and chaotic Deposit return scheme, which is led by an incompetent Government. At the same time, the SNP has turned in on itself, because its members are more interested in scoring political points against each other than in focusing on the people’s priorities. At this time of crisis for business, families and patients, why is it that people in Scotland see only a Government that is divided and in chaos? The First Minister (Nicola Sturgeon) Maybe somebody here can help me, but I have lost count of the number of leadership elections that have taken place in the Conservative and Labour parties in the years that I have stood here as First Minister. I think that people in Scotland will welcome seeing a robust debate about the future of our country, covering all of the things that Anas Sarwar has just talked about. They will appreciate seeing candidates for leadership setting out proposals to build on the actions that this Government has taken in recent years. Anas Sarwar talks about the cost of living crisis. One of the things that I am proudest of—and always will be proud of—in my time as First Minister is the game-changing Scottish child payment, which is transformational for families and children across the country and is doing more than anything across these islands to lift children out of poverty. I am proud of that, and I am confident that whoever succeeds me as First Minister will continue with that record of success. It will be interesting to hear whether Nicola Sturgeon is proud of the candidates, over the past couple of weeks, trashing her record in Government. The choice that the SNP is offering to the people of Scotland to replace Nicola Sturgeon is woeful. We have a health secretary who is closing an intensive care unit in Ayr, after promising to save it just a few weeks ago; a finance secretary who repeatedly blocked £15 an hour for care workers, but is now miraculously calling for it; and Ash Regan, who thinks that Scotland could set up a central bank within weeks. Three candidates are falling over each other to distance themselves from their Government’s policies. They are all U-turning on the flawed Deposit return scheme; they all want to hit the brakes on a national care service; and all of them are all over the place on independence. Nicola Sturgeon gave all of those candidates their first steps up in politics. With the benefit of hindsight, which candidate does the First Minister most regret appointing? I am proud of all of the Governments that I have led and I am proud of those who have served in them. With regard to the record of Government, I said on the day that I announced that I would be stepping down as First Minister that nobody would entice me into expressing a preference for my successor, and Anas Sarwar will not manage to do that, either. However, I am confident that whoever succeeds me will continue with that record of success. Ultimately, my record—and that of my ministerial team—in Government will be judged not by Anas Sarwar or Douglas Ross but by the people of Scotland. [Interruption.] Let us hear the First Minister. In my time as First Minister, that record has been judged by the people of Scotland on no fewer than eight occasions, and we have had eight landslide election victories. That is the vote of confidence in my record as First Minister that I will continue to be proud of. 3. Alex Cole-Hamilton (Edinburgh Western) (LD) To ask the First Minister when the Cabinet will next meet. (S6F-01855) The First Minister (Nicola Sturgeon) Tuesday. I am very grateful for that reply. St Andrews Wine Company champions small and local producers. Its mission is to offer interesting and lesser-known brands to its customers. Its owner, Peter, estimates that, because so few producers have signed up to the Deposit return scheme, three quarters of his stock will become unavailable. All that the company will have left is what can be bought in a supermarket. It is a family-run business that is being thrown under the bus, and there are thousands more businesses like it. Jobs are on the line, and the scheme is starting to cause real harm. Fergus Ewing, a loyalist of 50 years, has called the DRS “wilfully reckless”. The First Minister’s finance secretary, Kate Forbes, has called it “economic carnage”. Government incompetence is undermining the very case for the DRS, which could massively reduce our waste and emissions, but only if it works. This is a moment of real jeopardy. It cannot wait for the next First Minister, because irreversible business decisions are being made right now. Nicola Sturgeon calls it “opportunism”; I call it scrutiny, backed up by an avalanche of industry concerns. If the First Minister can halt the chaos of the national care service, why can she not pause this? We are not halting progress on the national care service; we are taking time to receive the report from the lead committee in the Parliament and consider it. If we did anything else, Alex Cole-Hamilton and others would rightly be the first to criticise us for that. As First Minister, I will continue to take all of my responsibilities very seriously for as long as I am in this job. One of those responsibilities is to ensure that my Government continues to engage with businesses on their concerns about the Deposit return scheme or anything else, to address those concerns and to allay fears that businesses such as the one that was cited by Alex Cole-Hamilton have put forward. We will do that sensibly, responsibly and in a way that ensures that we can introduce a scheme that is necessary for and beneficial to our environment, just as many other countries have already done, and as the United Kingdom Government is about to do. I think that that is what people expect from their Government on tough issues as well as on less tough issues. That is the approach that I have always taken to being First Minister, and I will continue to do so. Point of Order Maurice Golden (North East Scotland) (Con) On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. Yesterday, Lorna Slater said that there were 2 billion containers in the Deposit return scheme, representing 95 per cent of volume. Circularity Scotland, the scheme administrator, says that there are 3 billion containers. If the 2 billion figure is correct, is Biffa being paid to collect 1 billion containers that do not exist? If the 3 billion figure is correct, the volume registered would not be even close to 95 per cent. Presiding Officer, are you willing to invite Lorna Slater to correct the Official Report, or to come to the chamber to explain where the missing 1 billion containers have gone? The Presiding Officer (Alison Johnstone) In general, the content of members’ contributions is a matter for members. However, I do expect that ministers should strive to respond to the specific detail of questions, wherever possible. It is certainly the case that a mechanism exists whereby members who become aware of an inaccuracy in any comment can correct the Official Report in that regard. We will now move to members’ business. There will be a brief pause to allow members to leave the chamber and to allow those in the public gallery who also wish to leave to do so |