Seòmar agus comataidhean

I guess that this question is for all of you, but I will go back to you first, Professor Smith. I stumbled across “Jazz Nights”—I am not usually awake in that dead zone on a Sunday night—and I am glad that I did. Can we do more to promote that digital linear content through BBC Sounds? There is a lack of awareness of the three programmes that are up for cuts at the moment, which is a shame, because we are missing something if we do not know that those programmes exist.

Many of us are on a musical journey and we are trying to learn about new genres and wake ourselves up to new talent, but it is often difficult to find those programmes. They are not obvious—stumbling across them is not easy.

Yes, that is great—thank you.

I will go on to ask you about the BBC’s response. It has said that it has jazz programmes on Radio 2 and Radio 3, and that it can incorporate Scottish emerging talent into those programmes. I had a chance to look at the past month of output that is currently on BBC Sounds. I looked at all the track listings for the jazz programmes, but I did not see Fergus McCreadie, Georgia Cécile or any Scottish artists in any of them. Is there something problematic about the formats of those programmes on Radio 2 and Radio 3 that makes it hard to reflect that ecosystem of Scottish talent that we have talked about?

To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made toward increasing the availability of longer-term housing options for displaced people from Ukraine using the £50 million Ukraine longer-term resettlement fund. (S6O-01919)

Having somewhere safe to live is an absolute necessity for every displaced person who is rebuilding their life here in Scotland, free from war, persecution and violence. However, over recent weeks, we have seen horrific racist attacks on people seeking asylum who are living in hotels, which have been whipped up by far-right agitators and hostile language in Westminster. Will the cabinet secretary update me on what the Scottish Government is doing to protect people seeking refuge from far-right attacks?

Some MSPs have claimed that operating kerbside collections alongside the DRS would make Scotland unlike any other country in the world. Are those claims accurate? How would the minister like councils to respond to the DRS?

Will the member take an intervention?

I have lost count of the number of questions, statements and debates on the A9 that we have had in the chamber over many years. Mr Simpson gave us a rather amusing potted ministerial history at the beginning of the debate. I respect the fact that the Scottish Government remains committed to seeing the A9 dualling project through to the end, but the reality is that there are challenges and pressures on priorities and budgets, and they are growing and will not go away any time soon.

I do not have the time.

The action group has also talked about the need for the speed limit to be reduced to 50mph between Birnam and Dunkeld and for there to be better lighting at junctions, monitoring cameras and a roundabout at Dunkeld. I urge the minister, in her closing speech, to double down on those suggestions from my Perthshire constituents and to continue the investment in the A9 but to invest wisely based on where we are now and what the future looks like.

I am surprised, given that Labour accepts the huge environmental benefits of a deposit return scheme, that members of the party signed a letter during recess claiming that there will not be any environmental benefits from the scheme. Which one is it: are there environmental benefits, from Labour’s perspective, or not?

If Mr Golden was that interested in the DRS, he would have turned up to the committee sessions in 2019 when we took extensive evidence on all the issues. He would have experienced great delight in looking at all the evidence, which showed that there would be substantial reductions in carbon emissions. Look at the facts, Mr Golden.

So much can change in a week in politics. Today, the Tories have flipped again and now claim that the DRS will actually be good for the environment, but just not yet—not with this scheme; now is not the time. We have heard it all before.

We are told to wait for the UK Government to decide on an English scheme, which will not even include glass, despite glass having the biggest carbon impact and causing injuries to people, pets and wildlife as litter. The English scheme has been kicked down the road to October 2025 at the earliest. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has now publicly undermined that launch date, which in effect hands big business the veto on any further progress.

Right now, it is the big business polluters that are not paying. The Scottish DRS ensures that they, instead of consumers, will pay. At the moment, consumers have to pay twice—once at the shop for the drink and again through tax to pay for councils to collect bottles and cans, while the cost of littering, again, falls on the taxpayer.

The DRS will cut costs for councils. All councils will benefit from reduced collection costs. I recently visited a plastic film recycling enterprise in Fife, which, if scaled up, could take most of Scotland’s film. However, councils’ kerbside collections are full to the brim with plastic bottles and cans, many of which cannot be easily recycled back to food-grade material.