Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I am running short on time.

The DRS will create space in our bins for councils to innovate and expand the range and volume of materials that are recycled, which will increase recycling rates.

Any scheme that is as ambitious as Scotland’s DRS will have issues that need to be ironed out at the beginning. The concerns of small independent retailers and producers are being addressed. Yesterday’s announcement by Circularity Scotland has addressed the cash-flow issues and provided a simple labelling solution for producers of fewer than 25,000 units a year. Registration fees are being waived for some, producer fees are being reduced and handling fees are being increased for retailers. I am sure that other tweaks will come, such as online take-back requirements and exemptions from glass returns for some businesses.

It is time to reject the Tories’ scaremongering and join dozens of countries around the world that are helping to save their environment through deposit return schemes. I am proud that it will be Greens in government who deliver Scotland’s first DRS.

I just want to understand at what point the Tory Party dropped its commitment to include glass in the DRS. Was it before or after the member’s party accepted a donation from the Wine and Spirit Trade Association?

Well, well, well—first, the Tories backed a delay to Scotland’s deposit return scheme; then they wanted it sped up; now, they are calling for it to be stopped. What a reckless anti-business message that sends out to the hundreds of businesses that have quietly invested millions of pounds in the scheme. Reverse vending machines are being ordered; product packaging is being reconfigured; staff training programmes are being rolled out; and new jobs are being created.

The Tory flip-flopping and scaremongering on the DRS does not stop here. In the February recess, the dream team of Fergus Ewing and Maurice Golden hatched a letter that claimed that the DRS would actually be bad for the environment. How will the scheme be bad for the environment when it has been shown that it will reduce carbon emissions by 4 million tonnes over 25 years and will reduce litter by a third, Mr Golden?

I am looking at the CalMac stats for the number of cancellations because of adverse weather and some other categories. They seem to paint a picture of climate change and how weather will change in the future and cause significant disruption and challenges. Is there enough of an understanding of what is coming with climate change and how that will affect vessel specification, the way that ports and harbours will operate and the way that services should be configured in the future?

I want to ask you about catamarans. We have had quite a lot of evidence about using larger numbers of smaller vessels to achieve improved capacity service reliability, and some industry experts have mentioned having more fleet-of-foot catamarans. What are your thoughts on that, or is that completely CMAL’s concern?

How are you improving the integrated ticketing offering and providing an absolutely compelling product for people who are travelling?

Okay. It is good to hear that engagement has been taking place.

Obviously, the principle of transparency in land reform is hugely important. I note that that forms part of the consultation on the forthcoming bill. Can you say a little more about how you will take through the thread of transparency?

Has consideration of resilience been lacking up until now?