³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Many councils do not collect glass at all. There is the ability, when we introduce the circular economy bill, to encourage councils to standardise collection so that everywhere collects glass. In aggregate, there will be more glass in the system, because there will be more, as you say, jam jars, make-up bottles and all those sorts of things that will be included in the scheme. As we improve kerbside recycling, those glass materials can be used to meet the need for glass aggregate and all the other materials that are made of recycled glass that is not as efficient at being recycled back into glass bottles. That glass is needed and is still very valuable.

We have spoken with retailers and producers in great detail. Producers—in particular, Tennent’s—were very concerned about removal of glass from the scheme because their business is can-based, so removing glass from the scheme will render Tennent’s uncompetitive and put in place a significant barrier for its business, which is what we sought to avoid by making sure that glass was included for all businesses.

There are some challenges for everybody who handles glass in the retail space. Glass is heavy and it can be a health and safety hazard if it is broken. Handling glass is therefore a challenge for the people who need to handle it, but its inclusion has significant environmental benefits and creates a fair playing field for producers, so it is important that schemes include glass.

I am proceeding to answer the member’s question. The criteria for being a scheme administrator are laid out in the regulations. Provided that a business has met those criteria, the Scottish Government does not have the power to deny it the ability to be a scheme administrator, because a scheme could have many administrators. That is not how the power for creation of scheme administrators works. It does not come with that sort of additional conditionality with regard to how an administrator operates, but I am happy to ask officials to provide more detail.

As I said in response to an earlier question, on the basis of the actions that will we have been required to take, we do not believe that there is any requirement to pay compensation.

We have significant investment in the scheme. The delays to which you refer need to be properly explained. According to the regulations that were passed in 2020, the scheme was due to go live last year, in 2022. We had the Covid pandemic and Brexit, however, which substantially changed the circumstances in which businesses were operating.

To support businesses, we provided the first year’s delay until August this year. That was the launch date towards which we were working until, from February this year, the Secretary of State for Scotland put some doubt in the public space about whether the internal market act would be used to veto and block our scheme. He managed to make good on that threat in May and vetoed and blocked our scheme from being implemented as the Scottish Parliament had passed it.

The latter delays were specifically around interference with the scheme using the internal market act. None of them had to do with any suggestion that the scheme was not progressing operationally.

That is an excellent question, convener, and I am happy to go into it in detail.

As you all know, the urgent matter that we have before us is that the regulations that have been passed by Parliament say that our scheme will go live on 16 August, which is during the parliamentary recess. The urgent matter is that we deal with that so that businesses do not have to launch a scheme this summer after we have committed to delaying it.

The other part of the SSI is practical amendment to the regulations with regard to the size of miniatures and online takeback. We worked with industry for months to establish all those things, including the changes to online takeback, that we know are part of a working scheme. We owe it to the industry to follow through on our promise to deliver on what it worked on, which is why we are bringing those two matters forward. With regard to fitting in an expedited process before recess because of the 16 August cut-off, it would have been very risky to try to get that through Parliament. To make sure that we do not put businesses in the position of having to launch the DRS on 16 August, that was the smoothest process through that time, but I realise that it is not ideal.

Ailsa Heine may want to comment on that.

Although that mechanism for passing regulations that we know will need to be amended is, as the convener has said, a bit clumsy, it is the smoothest in terms of not having to recall Parliament while still allowing for the full scrutiny process instead of an expedited one. Once this SSI passes, I will immediately bring another one before Parliament, which will set the October 2025 date. That will allow for a normal amount of scrutiny, not some accelerated process, as we will have passed that 16 August cliff edge by passing the SSI that you are considering today.

I am aware of the written question that you have lodged on that and that Zero Waste Scotland does some work on the deposit return scheme through part of its budget. I do not have the breakdown of its budget; that might be information that we can get for the member.

The UK Government is, of course, aware of the changes but, because it has not put its regulations or its scheme in place, there has not been any co-development on these matters. The amendments have been developed with industry. We have been working with industry for months—for example, with the hospitality industry and small producers—to bring these changes to define Scotland’s deposit return scheme, which I remind the member is a fully devolved matter. The amendments, together, fully define Scotland’s deposit return scheme.

I will be discussing with Minister Pow how the UK Government wants to develop its scheme. I very much hope that it will look at our complete set of regulations and the work with industry that went into them, and take the learning from that forward into its scheme.