Seòmar agus comataidhean

Scotland’s deposit return scheme was getting ready to go live, create jobs and make our streets cleaner before it was recklessly blocked by the UK Government. When the minister met UK ministers to discuss their decision to impose unworkable conditions on our scheme, did they provide any reassurances that Scottish expertise and experience, a lot of which sits in Circularity Scotland, would be used to contribute to the development of a UK-wide scheme?

Sarah Boyack is shaking her head, but if she does not believe me, she should listen to Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford, who recognises the power grab for exactly what it is.

It is important to reflect on the qualities that good ministers have an abundance. The ability to show determination is important, but so is the ability to listen, to understand how policy affects people and business—[Interruption]

—and to respond with humility to concerns and make improvements.

Lorna Slater was tasked by Parliament with bringing in one of the most ambitious DRS schemes in Europe. She has spent the past 18 months listening and responding, and revising the scheme, so that we now have a DRS that has been designed and shaped by business itself. It sets the model for the UK, and Lorna Slater deserves huge credit for getting it to the point of launch—[Interruption]—only for the Tories to step in.

I am proud of my minister, Lorna Slater. She has not only brought the DRS to the point of launch but has increased investment in nature, banned new waste incinerators and introduced the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill to cut littering and waste. She is also delivering Scotland’s first new national park in a generation. She is a doer—a renewables engineer with real-world experience in industry. We are lucky to have her—[Interruption.]

The motion of no confidence is the most shameless, cynical and desperate Tory stunt that I have yet seen in this chamber. On the very day on which their leadership at Westminster fell apart among Boris Johnson’s lies, they lodged the motion in a pathetic attempt to distract everyone from the dying days of their Government.

The audacity of the motion—the absolute brass neck of it—beggars belief, because it is the Tories who have scuppered the DRS scheme by forcing the removal of glass, which the scheme was built around, and by setting conditions on its operation for which it is impossible to plan. Now they are trying to gaslight Scotland into believing that it was somehow Lorna Slater’s fault all along. That is absurd.

We can expect that sort of rank opportunism from the Tories, but what about Labour? I urge every Labour and Liberal Democrat member in the chamber to think long and hard about what they are voting for and whom they are lining up with to do that, because this is not just an attack on Lorna Slater—it is an attack on everyone who believes in devolution. [Interruption.]

The cabinet secretary is right to highlight the record investment in active travel and the free buses for more than 2 million people. In addition, with the removal of peak-time rail fares in the autumn, the dial is starting to shift towards a greener and fairer transport future. What more action does the Government need to take to reduce transport demand? What is the role of the UK Government in securing that reduction in transport demand? What is the role for the other parties in the Parliament, which are very quick to sign up to targets and very weak when it comes to taking the action that is needed to tackle the growth in transport demand?

We can contrast Lorna Slater’s actions with the disgraceful actions of Alister Jack, who, as Secretary of State for Scotland, stood up in the House of Commons and completely misrepresented our deposit return scheme. Alister Jack and his fellow ministers have acted with disdain for Scottish business and with contempt for the years of work that have been spent designing and investing in a DRS scheme for Scotland. They have not listened or compromised and they refuse even now to provide the certainty that business needs to move forward. Last night, Jack would not even vote to censure Boris Johnson for breaking almost every rule in the book. Instead he stood right with him to the shameful end. If anyone should be resigning, it is him. [Interruption.]

—yet the disrespect and lack of courtesy that are shown, even now, by some members in the chamber has at times disgusted me. This Parliament needs more Lorna Slaters and so does the Government, so get used to her. She is just getting started and has barely even begun to deliver the transformative agenda of the Greens in government. She is not going anywhere but forward tonight.

I will move to Seona Shand, on a similar theme. Reading your submission, it is obvious that there is a lot of excitement among business about the business opportunities of COP28. I think that you say that it is one of the largest global moments. Business will be trying to make sense of those opportunities in the same way that it did with the Dubai Expo 2020.

In relation to the COP process, at one level, COP26 in Glasgow felt like a big trade show. That is not to diminish the importance of that, as it is clearly served an important function, but it raises questions about credibility in relation to the business sector’s engagement in the COP process. It is about where you draw the line. When I was wandering around COP26 and looking the hundreds of stands that there were in Glasgow, I saw some stands from countries that were clearly stretching it in terms of credibility in terms of the kind of businesses that were being presented, the genuine sustainability of some of the offerings and what the countries were wanting to promote from their own individual sectors.

I wonder how you find that line of credibility within Scotland. Is COP28 an opportunity for everybody to come and present their goods and services? Are there particular key themes where the Scottish Government will say, “Look, this is our contribution in relation to climate change in terms of goods and services”, but there may also be others that are more questionable? I certainly saw some questionable promotion at COP26, which was widely described as “greenwashed” by others.

Okay. That is useful.

I will turn to my last question. We received evidence from Scotland’s International Development Alliance in which it proposed extending the outcomes and indicators for how we measure Scotland’s impact in relation to international work. It took a bit more of a wellbeing economy approach in wanting the inclusion of fossil fuel extraction and export, the arms trade, the socioeconomic impact of supply chains and the material footprint of Scotland’s businesses on the rest of the world.

Do you inherently welcome the emerging consensus around the wellbeing economy and what that means, or is it something that your members might have a concern around?

I will go to Gareth Williams first.