Give the people what they want. Give the people what they want. Give the people what they want. Your weekly movement news roundup. You're with Give the People What They Want. Coming to you from People's Dispatch. Today it's just Prashant. We lost Zoe. We haven't lost her. Just lost her voice. She'll be back next week. I'm Vijay from Globetrotter. Coming to you every week. This is the 159th show. 159 weeks. In fact longer because we had to skip some weeks. We've been with you for a long time. Accompanying you. Trying to bring you the important news from around the world. You might remember that in the US administration of President Joe Biden there's a person who's basically in charge of human rights to some extent the concept of genocide. In fact she wrote a book on genocide. Her name is Samantha Power. An important figure in the human rights community used to be at Harvard University and so on. Well interestingly after the International Court of Justice said released orders saying that there is plausible evidence plausibility of genocide being conducted by Israel against the people of Palestine in Gaza after the International Criminal Court had said this really within hours. The Israelis started to say that the principal UN agency Anarva founded in fact during the catastrophe of 1948 and is the principal provider of education health and other services to the Palestinian people the Israelis who have hated Anarva for a long time accused Anarva staff at least about a dozen of them of participating in one way the other in the October 7th attack across the fence from Gaza. Well few days later they reduced the number to less than 5 from just over a dozen. They reduced the number just in a few days. The classic Israeli ploy they sort of exaggerated the number and exaggerated the scale and then reduced it. By the way over 150 Anarva employees have been killed during this particular bombardment just to put in context this numbers game. Well you know not only did Israel make this statement that Anarva employees were involved in the attacks of October 7th and therefore Israel said not only did they make the claim but they then said that funders of Anarva should hold withhold their funding until Anarva decides to go a different way and so lining up right behind Israel were a number of western countries Canada the United States and so on and I was interested in listening to Samantha Power who again has written a book on genocide high official of the Biden administration defending not only Israel's brutal bombing of the Palestinians in Gaza but defending the defunding of a relief agency in the middle of what the international court of justice has said is a plausible genocide in the middle of a plausible genocide the high official of the US government wrote a book on genocide is okay with cutting funding to the one relief agency that might ameliorate the effects of this genocide. Now what's interesting as well yesterday former Anarva spokesperson said that in fact Anarva wasn't even shown this evidence this evidence was sent overseas to other countries it was not even shared with Anarva there was no discussion with the UN agency to talk to them to find out and verify if indeed the names on this Israeli list were actually Anarva employees or if somebody else had just conjured the name there was no conversation with this UN agency and immediately the Israelis accused it of terrorism. In fact I must say having covered the 2014 operation protective edge bombing of Gaza in which over 2,000 people were killed in a matter of just a few weeks the Israeli government targeted a number of of UN buildings including UNICEF UNICEF being the UN Children's Fund interesting one European country decided we are not going to stop funding Anarva and that's Belgium. Belgium said we are going to continue to fund Anarva. Well hours later a Belgian funded NGO was struck by Israeli bombs inside Gaza was that retaliation was that basically just an accident I mean cannot just be a coincidence that a funded organization was struck immediately. What is very clear to anybody who is watching this Prashant what is very clear is this has got not really much to do with October 7 because Israel has been after Anarva for a long time. This has got to do fundamentally with the Israelis demand that Palestinian refugees in Lebanon in Jordan and other places who avail themselves of Anarva services no longer do so and have to therefore become citizens of Jordan, citizens of Lebanon and suspend or in fact further than that to annul their Palestinian citizenship. This is in fact a violation of the Security Council Resolution 194 which gives Palestinians the right to return. If Anarva is closed down then it becomes difficult for Palestinians to maintain themselves as Palestinian refugees who have a right to return they now become citizens of Lebanon and other countries. Quite an outrageous a set of events but I really would oblige Samantha Power to once again go to her bookshelf pull down her own book and read her own book about genocide she might learn a few things so Samantha if you're watching this let's read the book together you can do a kind of online discussion of it could be interesting or she could come on people's dispatch Prashant and do an interview to talk about her book and so on we'll give her enough airtime maybe an hour long interview would be interesting an hour long interview not available for Imran Khan or his wife. Pakistan part of one of these countries two billion people or so that are going to have elections this year Pakistan some people Pakistan decided through the wisdom cancel Imran Khan and cancel his party Prashant tell us about that. What we're seeing of course is a campaign against Imran Khan that has been on for many many months now and it's interesting of the two cases in which he was sentenced for 10 years in prison in one case and 14 years in the other the first case is what is called the Cypher case. Now the Cypher case it's quite an interesting case because it refers to a particular document a government document which Imran Khan held after the rally around the time he was basically deposed and he said basically there are foreign powers working to overthrow me and later it turned out that the Cypher involved was basically sent by Pakistani diplomat with comments from an American diplomat saying that they would be all would be forgiven by the words if Imran Khan was to be overthrown in a no confidence motion. Now as you know Imran Khan was overthrown in no confidence motion in April 2022 I believe and just before he was overthrown what had happened was that he had visited Russia around the time as the war broke out he had kind of indicated that he was taking a position where he would for Pakistan's energy and other needs sort of continue to stick or at least maintain good relations with Russia and then there was a very serious question as to whether the deep state in Pakistan the establishment in Pakistan which has really been in control for many of these years would allow that to continue and of course as we know the establishment largely comprises the military which has kind of maintained even which has either been in direct power through various coup d'etats or has you know been the has created politicians like puppets and the fact was that it seemed increasingly unlikely that that would be allowed to continue or Imran Khan's defiance would be allowed to continue and as you can guess it was not he was first of all deposed and then hit with a barrage of cases we are talking about almost 150 cases if I am not mistaken and he has been sentenced to three of these two of these of course are the Cypher case and another case related to the sale of gifts from the government gift storage facility so to speak the Cypher case like I said is especially interesting Imran Khan had said that you know that was an evidence of foreign involvement in his overthrow now of course he is saying that it was just a piece of paper but that piece of paper actually existed in which a US diplomat was on record saying that now all of this especially important because Pakistan is said to see elections in a few days I believe in February 8th to February it is going to elections and all polls all indications seem to show that Imran Khan and his party are by far the most popular choice for a number of voters but one thing is that because these sentences Imran Khan can't contest and more importantly his parties has not been allowed to use its traditional symbol which is a cricket by Imran Khan being of course a very famous cricketer as well many of the party candidates contesting as independents and this follows months and months of crackdown on his political party the Pakistan Perikin Saaf party many erstwhile leaders leaving politics all together because of the extent of pressure that the establishment was applying on them and what we saw was a very rare phenomenon during this whole period of the past one and a half years which is that two traditional rival parties the Pakistan Muslim League of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the Pakistan People's Party of Bilawal Bhutto the party of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto who were the traditional rivals for almost two decades uniting with clearly the patronage or clearly the approval of the military to form this kind of a government which succeeded Imran Khan and this was the government which massively cracked down on the Pakistan Perikin Saaf party of Imran Khan and basically inflicted considerable amount of damage on a lot of leaders like I said leaving the party or facing a number of cases by which they were not able to continue to be verdicts anymore so the battle lines definitely drawn for the elections in Pakistan now Imran Khan will definitely appeal these two verdicts the judiciary is also has also behaved in a number of varying ways so we really can't say unlike in some other countries what position the judiciary might take on his case it's possible that they might suspend the sentence it's possible that you know they might take a more favourable verdict towards him but what remains is a very fascinating situation where we have a personality and a party more a personality who is actually sort of defined in many ways towards the establishment and has managed to garner a fair amount of popularity for that and I think we also need to sort of see this in the context of a deep systemic crisis in Pakistan's economy in Pakistan society as well the country of course has gone repeatedly to the IMF it has been complete the people facing massive amounts of inflation the cost not only the cost of living but at every level there have been economic woes which no government including Imran Khan has been able to sort of face in any way so Imran Khan having the benefit of being sort of seen as an outsider even now because the persecution is faced an outsider someone who is you know against all these entrenched interests so all this together a very very unique political situation in Pakistan right now we have three parties the two parties which are earlier together that is Pakistan people's party and the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz have now are now contesting separately we have the PTI led by Imran Khan so there is basically a three-party contest here in between all this there is of course also I think the left position which needs to be you know I think followed as well there is a lot of powerful significant left forces that Pakistan have combined together and are presenting a very different and different and alternative agenda which basically poses more fundamental questions to the people as to why is it that Pakistan is time and again to go to the IMF why is it that you know there is this almost what do you call this politicians keep cycling around but nonetheless there is no structural solution to the problems of it that the people are facing why is it that so much the industrialization has happened in the country and why is it that ultimately people are almost dependent on even way for very basic needs for the basic economy to function for grants from the IMF these are very fundamental questions that people are going to confront they have to decide in this election so we will come back next week by next week I think the election results will be out very very interesting elections in a very important country in Asia it's very interesting because in the last parliamentary election Prashant Imran Khan's party got over 30% of the vote I think somewhere near 32% if I'm not mistaken and when you add up Sharif's vote with Bhutto's vote the other two main parties they are just about more than Imran Khan's party just about I think Sharif's vote the Nawaz party got about 20 some percent and the Bhutto party people's party got about 10-12% very interesting how they've been able to get him out of here for this election maybe make it hard for him to return although he remains one of the most popular candidates popular politicians in Pakistan also phenomenal all-rounder when it comes to cricket we remember him fondly coming into bowl on the other side was Sharif Nawaz another great fast bowler from Pakistan give the people what they want brought to you from people's dispatch there's Prashant here today I'm Vijay from Globetrot I almost said I'm Zoe because I'm so used to saying her name right after yours Prashant it's a tough tough period in the world lots of wars lots of conflicts and so on very quick report for you friends on what's been happening with Iran now the war in Gaza the bombing of Gaza has in fact created a great mood in the Middle East of anger and frustration with the fact that Israel seems to be getting away with genocide for which reason many groups around the Middle East Ansar Allah in the lead of this in Yemen closing down the Red Sea Channel saying that we're doing this in support of the Palestinians Hezbollah pinning down Israeli troops in the northern part of Israel along the perimeter with Lebanon Hezbollah playing a major role there and then various other militia groups in Syria in Iraq and in Jordan frustrated wanting to do something there was an attack at a U.S base they keep calling it a remote U.S base you wonder why there's a U.S base in Jordan in that sort of knuckle area of Jordan beneath Syria well it's from the U.S base that the United States ran a lot of operations in its attempt to destabilize Syria during the heart of that conflict at any rate in this base there was an attack some U.S. service persons died soldiers died well the reaction has been interesting firstly the cliched responses came from the United States Government you saw Mr. Biden and Lloyd Austin who had been ill made a return you know Lloyd Austin at his press conference on the first of February said something which I think all U.S. presidents have said ever since 1823 Monroe Doctrine he said we will respond when we choose where we choose and how we choose I mean those of us who cover United States know and are familiar with this cliché but Mr. Austin also said something that demonstrates the kind of Brigado in the U.S. Government he said well these militia groups have a lot of capability he paused for dramatic effect and then he said but we have more so we can bomb them it's very interesting the U.S. Government Biden, Austin and others have been talking about these groups as Iranian-backed proxies or Iranian-backed militias Ansar Allah, Hezbollah, Kataib this that and the other in Syria and in Iraq these are two things. Number one it's pretty clear that these are not really Iran-backed in the way that one understands these are Iran-supported organizations Hezbollah is supported by Iran but Hezbollah has a history that is prior to Iran's involvement it has a pre-history around the Israeli occupation of Beirut from 1982 it has a history of fighting the Marines in Beirut and so on it's not Iran proxy these organizations have their own history Ansar Allah is in fact an organization that goes back to the period of the fight against Ali Abdullah Saleh who was the president of unified Yemen after the unification of Yemen and also Ansar Allah goes back to the 9th century I mean for God's sake long before when Sufism comes to Persia the Zadis set up an emirate in northern Yemen in somewhere around the late 900s they have a long history and by the way Zadishism for those who don't know has much more in common with Sufism and in fact Sunniism then with Iranian Shiism it's really kind of illiteracy to talk about these things as if they're all Iranian puppets second thing is Iran doesn't want a conflict Iran in fact has made a public statement saying that these groups should stop randomly attacking US positions very interesting well they don't want to be bombed by the United States at this time they are not ready for a hot war the US seems to be trigger happy ready for a hot war in Venezuela again ready for a hot war in Iran and ready for a hot war with China the Iranians say not for us friends Lloyd Austin full of bluster we'll respond where we want meanwhile here we go Iranian saying we don't want a war put those guns back in the holster this is not the time for a showdown then Prashant in the Sahel region a whole other demand saying put the guns back in the holster what are those governments saying in the Sahel region of Africa I think what we're seeing in the Sahel region is probably a culmination of a process that has been taking place for many years now which is that Mali Burkina Faso and Niger have left Ekovaas the West African regional block for economic cooperation etc now Ekovaas has been in the news especially in the latter half of 2023 for the kind of regressive positions it took on a variety on the coup in Niger and how out of touch it seemed to be with the people in its own countries now Ekovaas said 15 countries with these 3 countries leaving it has come down to 12 countries right and but if you look at the landmass because Mali is a huge country it's a considerable blow to its landmass but I think more important is the fact that it's a considerable blow to its reputation its prestige as a block of countries in the region because in many ways it has been exposed in the aftermath of the coup in Niger in July 2023 when you know it almost seemed to act like an agent of French imperialism by threatening an armed intervention despite the fact that the coup in Niger was actually welcomed by its people that earlier coups in Mali and Burkina Faso had also been welcomed even in earlier occasions they had taken a very negative stand towards these coup d'etat let's not call them coups as much as military takeovers because we have discussed this before the military takeovers in those regions have been kind of different from what you would the traditional military takeovers that we saw in Latin America for that matter which are basically CIA sponsored operations these seem to be operations where a section of junior officers you know pushed back against rulers who were considered too close to France and seem to sort of encapsulate in trying to manage a popular vast popular sentiment on the ground against the presence of France and against the presence of French proxies in the form of the leaders now Ekova's response to the coup in Niger was to pretty much threaten invasion an operation which quickly the wheels fell off because we saw that for instance in Nigeria which was one of the leading countries and Ekova's senate refused in many other countries we saw massive dissatisfaction over that possibility and that itself you know I think was a huge dent to the credibility of Ekova's in coming in the later months Ekova sort of indicated that you know we are going to negotiate we still believe that all these regimes are not so legitimate but we somehow negotiate etc etc but I think what Ekova's is confronting right now is basically the fact that many of their countries face the leaders of many of their countries face a massive crisis of legitimacy many of these leaders are seen pretty much as French proxies as people implementing the agenda of France whether it be Maki Sal especially Maki Sal in Senegal for instance but the crisis even extends to people like Bola Pinupu in Nigeria or for instance the leaders of Ivory Coast as well many of these co-devour as well many of these places I think there is a substantial crisis of legitimacy faced by these leaders Islamist insurgencies in many of these places France not being able to you know despite all its claims not being able to provide any solution at all and I think there is a massive sort of pushback that is taking place and in general across the region a sort of a region-based pushback and I think that is what has crystallized in the form of these military takeovers in these three countries so what we're seeing also is the fact that in these three countries established a relationship into the form of the alliance of Sahil states you know they said that in the attack on one of us would be considered an attack on the other one probably one key factor why the Nicaragua's so-called invasion intervention force did not take place there's a great interview with Crazy Pratt Junior on breakthrough news General Secretary of Socialist Movement of Ghana where he talks about some of these aspects the fact that Niger has actually seen a considerable amount of growth since the coup the fact that the economic subservience of many countries in West Africa to France is really what is hindering their development as well and he poses some very interesting questions I would encourage all our viewers to watch it but I think what this poses right now we have been talking for about over a year and a half about how this is one of the most important regions in the world a very successful pushback against French imperialism definitely taking place you know a desire to sort of seize their destiny seize control of their resources but the question is that whether the rulers of that region the new military rulers who are taken over will be able to address those aspirations so I would think that it's a definite a very positive sign that these countries have exposed ECOVAs for what it is I think for the ECOVAs leaders themselves is a very important question it's a wake up call for the people in the country that remain the countries that remain in ECOVAs also a very important moment right now yeah I can't you know say that I agree more than that because I agree with everything you just said you know as I said this today Prashant is really so much about war and destruction and we can't avoid that these are the compelling issues of our time and here we are yesterday first of February you know Lloyd Austin one side of the Atlantic full of bluster saying you know we'll attack whoever we want perhaps even Iran and then the European Union 27 countries gathering together deciding to put 54 billion US dollars or 50 billion euros in the pockets of the Ukrainians to continue that war this has been an interesting dance in December Victor Orban of Hungary said that he would veto any attempt to continue this war in Ukraine that a peace agreement must be found and so on well Orban meets Zelinski in the at the inauguration of the Argentinian president Javier Millay they had some conversations they didn't really publicly say what they talked about but what most people are saying is that at the EU meeting in December when Orban said we are going to veto he thought he would get support from other countries where there's a kind of recognition and exhaustion in the population with this war that other states may say okay fine let's pull everybody to the negotiating table he didn't get any support and then EU came back and said well we are going to reconsider the understanding in the EU if you don't go along with this in fact Hungary received a lot of money from the EU so the EU then essentially blackmail Victor Orban Victor Orban after the vote saying this 54 billion will be given we draw a veto after that Mr. Victor Orban said we will not succumb to blackmail well you just did you just buckled under EU blackmail and Charles Mitchell can spend this as much as he wants on behalf of the EU that's effectively what this was now interestingly the US military establishment Navy Admiral Sam Paparo gave a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee where he said something interesting and I think people need to follow sometimes what these military people said say he said that it is important that the West continue to support Ukraine and its ambitions against the Russians not because of Russia not even because of Ukraine but because of the important message this will send to China that if the West buckles in Ukraine said Navy Admiral Sam Paparo then the Chinese will believe look there is nobody holding us back if we want to go and see three uninhabited islands next to Taiwan nobody is going to say anything you know they don't have the fortitude to continue very interesting revelation by Mr. Paparo open statement that really they don't scare so much about the human lives and suffering in Ukraine or the question of weakening Russia this is a much bigger geopolitical game and he puts the map down on the table in terms of the war in Ukraine it is now almost universally acknowledged that the front line just can't move this $54 billion is really about shoring up the front line the front line is not able to shift there is going to be no improvement of the situation which again begs the question why not come to the negotiating table if nobody else wants them to come to the negotiating table the European farmers Prashant certainly do just in the brief time we have what have these European farmers been up to Vijay I mean I think it's important to note that the media in many parts especially the western countries have sort of portrayed it as farmers being farmers resisting green policies are being intransigent or whatever they are being unwilling to change but we have a couple of good pieces on the people's despite side of the protests in France and articles that appeared on the workers party of Belgium which really kind of I think paints a very different picture of why farmers across Europe are protesting there have been protests in Germany, France, Italy, Belgium all these countries protest in Poland taking place earlier Ukraine wore one key factor the kind of subsidies that EU countries gave to grain from Ukraine was definitely a factor but I think what these farmers in many of these countries are protesting is as much a factor that a bulk of their a bulk of the huge amount of profit has been made by agribusiness companies at this point of time whereas the farmers have been struggling the consumers of course facing inflation facing a huge cost what is called the cost of living crisis but farmers also really facing a massive crisis they haven't been getting the kind of prices that they should be deserving the amount of land that is under agriculture small farmers increasingly vanishing a huge amount of land being taken over by big corporates and it is these big corporates who are also getting the benefits of various programs including what is called the CAP by from the European Union it is a big farmers with the big corporates who seem to be benefiting from all these policies so the smaller farmers the individual farmers really in a very bad shape really doing economically very poorly while these big companies are really profiting that is the angle that needs to be looked into as opposed to being seen as farmers just being resistant to any green transition policies which are really important at this point of time and of course also the fact that the bureaucracy itself the kind of bureaucratic hurdles it is placed the fact that when it comes to many of these policies there has been absolutely no consultation with the farmers and the workers who are involved in agriculture these are factors I think the farmers are trying to stress at this point and it will be very wrong to sort of see this as a farmers versus environmentalism debate which it is very unfortunately I think being presented whereas I think it's more on terms of farmers opposing very big questions about the nature of the economy itself and there you have it friends give the people what they want brought to you from people's dispatch today it's Prashant I'm Vijay from Globe Trotter next week 160th show Zoe will be back see you then


It is not you alone who can take the credit of your success. Let me prove that for you by narration of this short story. A bus full of passengers was on its journey and suddenly the weather changed and there was huge downpour. It was raining and lightning all around. The passengers saw that lightning appeared to strike their bus and then it moved ahead without hitting the bus, luckily. After two or three such instances, the drivers stopped the bus about 50 feet away from a tree and said, rather announced that we have somebody in the bus whose death is a certainty today. Because of that person, everybody else will also get killed. I want each person to go one by one and touch the tree trunk and come back. Whosoever's death is certain will get caught by the lightning and will die, obviously. But everybody else will be saved. They had to literally force the first person to go and touch the tree and come back. The first passenger reluctantly got down from the bus, went and touched the tree. His heart leaped with joy when nothing happened and he was still alive. This continued for all the other passengers who were eventually all relieved when they touched the tree and nothing happened to them. When it was the last passenger's turn, everybody looked at him with the accusing eyes. This passenger was also very afraid and reluctant. Everybody forced him to get down and go and touch the tree. With the fear of death, the last passenger walked to the tree and touched it. There was a huge sound of thunder and the lightning struck and hit the bus. Not the tree, but the bus. Yes, the lightning hit the bus and killed each and every passenger inside the bus. It was because of the presence of this last passenger that thus far the entire bus was safe and lightning could not strike. Actually, he was the saviour and not the perpetrator as all the passengers had thought. Sometimes we exclusively try to take credit for our achievements and success. But this could also be because of the person right next to us. Our success could be attributed to that person. Probably someone is there around you in the form of parents, spouse, children, siblings, friends, a supporting senior colleague, etc. who are saving you from harm. So try to acknowledge and appreciate people around you. They could actually be part of your success story.


The next item of business is a statement by Lorna Slater on deposit return scheme. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement and so there should be no interruptions or interventions and I call on minister Lorna Slater around 10 minutes please. I welcome this opportunity to update Parliament on the deposit return scheme following the first minister's statement earlier this week. Scotland's deposit return scheme is an ambitious and transformational upgrade to Scotland's recycling infrastructure. It has already seen hundreds of millions of pounds invested across the country and is creating hundreds of new green jobs in the recycling industry with many more to come. It will reduce litter by a third, increase recycling rates of single use drinks containers to 90% and cut CO2 emissions by 4 million tonnes over 25 years. This is the kind of change we need to see if we are to remain true to our commitment to tackle the climate emergency and to leverage private investment behind a green and circular economy. However, Presiding Officer, as both the first minister and I have said this week, we cannot deliver on this ambition without an exclusion from the UK government on the Internal Market Act. With just four months to go, that exclusion has not been issued, making a delay to the scheme unavoidable. We also have heard the concerns expressed by businesses, particularly small businesses, and want to do more to support them. With that in mind, I will today set out a new timetable for Scotland's DRS, provide an overview of a new package of measures to simplify the scheme and to support businesses to participate. I will finish with next steps on our engagement with the UK Government. Presiding Officer, there has been significant progress by businesses large and small in preparing for the scheme. Around £300 million of investment has been committed in systems, infrastructure and staff time, with many businesses fully prepared to launch the scheme. The scheme administrator, Circularity Scotland, has developed the logistical network that will support the operation of the scheme, and ground has been broken on sites across Scotland, including sorting centres in Aberdeen and Motherwell that are creating up to 200 new green jobs. I am very grateful to all those who have helped to make this happen. However, in recent months progress has stalled. Presiding Officer, the primary cause of this has been the uncertainty that has been created by the continued failure by the UK Government to issue an IMA exclusion. Members, I said that there should be no interventions or interruptions, but please continue. Together with public briefings against the scheme from the Secretary of State for Scotland, the effect has been corrosive, undermining confidence, stalling progress and halting private investment. Some businesses have said that they will simply not join the scheme because of the UK Government's position, and there has been extensive feedback from industry that they are not willing to proceed with investments until they have clarity. This is ambitious, major infrastructure scheme that affects thousands of businesses and everyone in Scotland. Readiness for August was always going to be challenging, particularly given the difficult conditions that industry has faced in recent years. However, the chilling effect as a result of Westminster's position has made it impossible. Scotland's deposit return scheme will now go live on 1 March 2024. This gives the time needed for the UK Government to fulfil its duties, and for businesses it gives a full 10 months from now to get ready for launch. Earlier this week, I met representatives of producers and retailers to outline this new timetable with them. I want to acknowledge their constructive response and the suggestions that they have made to ensure that these 10 months are used to full effect. I look forward to continuing to engage with them to ensure that we make the progress that we need to together. I have also asked the partners of this scheme, CSL, SEPA and Zero Waste Scotland, to work with my officials and with businesses to deal promptly with any remaining issues to allow businesses to prepare. While Scotland's DRS is an industry-led scheme, just as similar schemes are across the world, the Scottish Government has consistently worked in partnership with businesses to facilitate progress and to ensure that a pragmatic approach is taken to implementing the scheme. That is why we are removing the obligation on the vast majority of online retailers to provide take-back services. It is why, earlier this year, CSL brought forward a £22 million package of support to improve cash flow for producers. That is why we have listened carefully to the suggestions of small businesses, in particular, that have made in the last few a weeks with a view to developing a package of measures that are fair, pragmatic and support the overall aims of the scheme. The key elements of that package are as follows. Firstly, all drinks containers under 100 millilitres will be completely excluded from the scheme. This will benefit businesses in the soft drinks, wine and particularly the spirits industry who have raised particular concerns about miniatures, while removing just 0.2 per cent of articles from the scheme. Secondly, products with low sales volumes will be excluded from the scheme. This change applies to any product that sells less than 5,000 items a year. That will apply to all businesses, so a large business that has a niche product line with low sales volumes will not need to apply a deposit to that line. A small business that only sells low volume products will not need to apply a deposit to any of their products. That change will only remove about 0.5 per cent of articles from the scheme, but will remove the need for around 44 per cent of businesses to apply a deposit to their products, effectively removing many of the smallest producers from the scheme. Thirdly, we plan to exempt all hospitality premises who sell the large majority of their drinks products for consumption on the premises from acting as a return point. Regulations already exempt premises that exclusively sell drinks on-site, such as restaurants, pubs and nightclubs. However, many hospitality businesses also sell a small proportion of drinks to take away. Where that is the case, we agree that they need not operate as a return point, given that they will already be operating a closed-loop system for drinks on sale. We will engage with hospitality businesses on the proportion of sales at which that will apply to ensure a balance between support for businesses and accessibility for customers. Also in partnership with Zero Waste Scotland, we have simplified the online process for retailers to apply for an exemption from operating a return point following feedback from businesses that have used the online application system. Finally, I am aware of the concern that some businesses have around the size and complexity of the producer agreement with Circularity Scotland. To help with this, I have asked Circularity Scotland to develop a short-form producer agreement, which will help to reduce the burden on these businesses. Throughout the process of developing DRS, we have worked closely with officials in the UK Government. However, the UK Government still has to issue an internal market act exclusion, even though we first raised the need for one in 2021. We have followed the agreed process and provided all material that has been asked of us, and I had expected to finally get a decision at the most recent inter-ministerial group meeting on Monday of this week. However, no decision was forthcoming and ministers were unable to provide a time frame for one. Let me be clear. Scotland's DRS is within the devolved competence— Minister, sorry, could you resume your seat just for a second, please? I have said at the outset that there should be no interventions or interruptions whilst the minister is speaking. There will be opportunities after the minister has concluded to our statement to ask questions. Minister, please resume. Let me be clear. Scotland's DRS is within the devolved competence of the Scottish Government and Parliament. It is not for Westminster to undermine our democracy in this way. Following this statement, we will write to the UK Government to inform them of the new timetable and support package and to request once again for an urgent decision to allow the scheme to proceed as I have outlined. I am confident that this will happen because there is no reasonable justification for this request to be refused. It is the right outcome for businesses, for Scotland and for the UK, who will benefit from our scheme leading the way and we remain committed to continue to share lessons with the UK Government. Alongside this IMA exclusion, we are also working with the UK Government on issues related to trading standards, which are important for producers and retailers. Businesses need answers on these issues in short order, and again I asked the UK Government to work with us, businesses and regulators, to resolve these critical issues in a timely manner. Let me finish by saying that I and this Government are committed to Scotland's deposit return scheme. This commitment is unwavering because I believe in climate action. I believe in investing in green infrastructure, in creating the green jobs of the future. I call on members across this chamber who share these values to put an end to their increasingly desperate attempts to undermine Scotland's deposit return scheme, because right now it looks like colleagues on the Labour and Tory benches have given up on recycling, on tackling the litter crisis, on the climate emergency and even on the authority of this Parliament to make decisions in devolved areas. That is what this comes down to. Scotland's Parliament legislated to make deposit return happen, and I as a Minister of the Scottish Government am delivering on that democratic mandate. A Tory Westminster Government that Scotland did not vote for appears to be using the post-Brexit powers that it gave themselves to stop this vital scheme in its tracks. Labour and the Tories might have given up on devolution. Sorry to interrupt again, please resume your seat just a wee second. I have said this is the third and last time I'll say this. The minister is making a statement, as is the common practice when ministers make statements, that there are to be no interventions or interruptions. Thank you. Labour and the Tories might have given up on devolution. We have not. I and this Scottish Government will work tirelessly to deliver on our mandate and to protect this Parliament's right to work for the people of Scotland. Thank you minister. The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions after which we will move on to the next item of business, and I would ask those members who would wish to ask a question if they would please press the request to speak buttons now, and I call Maurice Golden. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank the minister for an advanced sight of this statement. The only party in this chamber that has given up on recycling is the SNP and indeed their partners in the Greens. Having not met the 2013 household recycling target, which the Scottish Government set, but this statement confirms the SNP-Green approach, constitutional grievance first and business second. The Scottish Government has been sitting on this scheme since 2009, before it finally got round to introducing regulations and setting a launch date of April 21. Then we had a delay, then another delay, then this week, with the minister having lost control of the scheme, the First Minister had to step in and announce yet another delay. The minister will not be happy with that, having said, and I quote, no-one with any credibility would delay the scheme again, and that it would be a quote kick in the teeth to industry. However, the minister has made such an almighty mess of this scheme that she has now had to effectively re-write it. Today's changes should have been made months ago. Businesses cannot have confidence in the scheme that sees continual delays and massive changes at the last minute. Let's be clear. That is not an industry-led scheme. The Scottish waste sector has been excluded, small businesses have been excluded from membership of the scheme administrator and, in any case, Donald Macallman from Circularities Scotland said today, and I quote, we are not running the scheme. I think that that is an important misconception to address. So, can the minister provide a helpful answer? I am not interested in pre-scripted flimflam telling me information that I already know. Will registered producers be held liable for advance months payments during this delay, yes or no? I am sorry, due to the noise around me, I could not hear the question. Could you repeat the last bit, please? Before you stand up to ask again your question, the question would have been heard if members in the front bench and other parts of the benches I am looking at directly had not heckled you whilst you answered your question. Asking your question is perhaps a salutary lesson for everybody this afternoon if you could just let the person who has the floor be the speaker at that particular moment in time. Douglas Lums, Maurice Golden. I am much younger than Douglas Lums. Will registered producers be held liable for advance months payments during this delay, yes or no? The member asks a very interesting question at the end, which is about the agreement between the producers and Circularities Scotland, which is a contract that they have signed. The member may be reassured that only the very largest producers are liable for the costs under that contract. I also thank the minister for advance notice of her statement, though I have to say that I am deeply disappointed by the tone and content of the statement. I put on record that the response by the First Minister in my letter yesterday was merely a political attack, which, unfortunately, the minister is repeating today. Businesses, the hospitality sector and recycling companies have been stressed and have highlighted their concerns for months, and being told to go to a website by the minister for the last few months has not cut it, especially when the information that they sought wasn't even there. Now that we have this inevitable delay, surely we need a grown-up approach from both the UK and the Scottish Governments to ensure that we get a scheme that will not disadvantage Scottish businesses and consumers. Scottish Labour is absolutely clear that we support the principle of a DRS scheme. It has been successful in other countries, and in the debate today we will highlight our commitment to stronger action on climate emergency. Even now, there is no admission in this statement about what has been wrong with this scheme and its design, and that is why we have been asking questions for months. A key issue that I want some response from the minister on is the implementation of the scheme. He said again that it has been given to the private company Circularity Scotland. It does not represent small businesses with no accountability or parliamentary oversight. It has already given the contract to BIFA now a US hedge fund-owned company that will put jobs and local recycling companies at risk and give them a monopoly over what prices are charged in the future. Will the minister now roll back on that? What will remain a concern to businesses is the exact detail of how the scheme is to be implemented. Will the minister now commit to meet with those producers, members of the hospitality sector and recycling companies who will still face major challenges even with the changes that she has announced today? I continue to meet producers, members of the retail sector and hospitality sector, and I am happy to meet your recyclers in the sector as well. Engagement with industry and business has been a core part of how we have been delivering this. Indeed, after the First Minister's statement on Tuesday, I held rapid meetings with producers, retailers and the NGOs in the sector that very afternoon, which is just a continuing example of the kind of engagement that we have had along. I will go through some of the timeline here because I think that might be useful for the member to understand. Since last year, we have developed considerable momentum towards what was intended to be the launch this year in August. That included working with industry on their concerns towards the scheme. The way that the regulations were passed by this Parliament were deliberately broad to allow industry to make those adjustments and decisions that were right for industry. This scheme is paid for by industry and delivered by industry. I suppose that this Parliament could have passed a scheme that was paid for by the taxpayer and controlled by government, but that is not what this Parliament passed. However, within the scope of delivering the scheme, there are some key partners. One is the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. We passed the regulations. SEPA enforces those regulations, and industry's job is to adhere to the regulations. Circularity Scotland is a private, not-for-profit business that has been created by industry to enable them to comply with the regulations as passed by this Parliament. Throughout the process of delivering this project, industry has come back to me as a representation of the Scottish Government and said, look, there are certain elements of the scheme that we would like to clarify, to get detail on, to improve. We have done so. We clarified the process for streamlining exclusions. We got rid of online take-back for most people who would have been responsible for it. We worked with Circularity Scotland, who in March delivered £22 million worth of cash flow, and today I have also announced significant adjustments to the delivery of the scheme that has been asked for by industry. Industry has asked us to exclude miniatures. We have done so. Industry has asked us to look at what could be done for small producers. 44% of small producers are now not required to have a deposit on the scene. The Member should be clear that I have systematically worked through and delivered on what industry you are asking for. Now we have 10 months from now to the new launch date. I am looking forward to working with industry to get to that launch date successfully. On Tuesday, the businesses that I engage with have been very constructive, and I thank them for their suggestions as to how we might work together to do that, and I will continue to do that. I would point out that we would probably need to think questions and indeed ministers to think answers in order to allow me to take as many members as I possibly can in the time that we have available. I call Fiona Hyslop to be followed by Liam Kerr. I am having difficulty hearing the minister, and I think that time would be best spent with questions and answers that has been taken up by a lot of noise from the Conservatives. Can the minister—this takes up time. If everything takes up time with Hyslop, and I will try to deal with that as best as I can, please continue. Can the minister now suggest that SEPA and Circularity Scotland provide clarity on the basis for the scheme for small hospitality businesses, such as the dreadnought in Basgate that I recently visited, who already recycle 100 per cent of the glass bottles, cans and other waste using existing SEPA systems of recording such recycling? What consideration has been given to those hospitality closed-loop venues like theirs who will have difficulties storing waste and recycling securely, where the same company designated by Circularity Scotland to collect in the future will only do so from the public main street, which brings serious security issues for what will be a valuable commodity? All scheme articles bear a deposit that hospitality businesses will have paid when they purchase those materials. Hospitality businesses can only redeem that deposit by ensuring that scheme articles are returned. Removing them from the scheme is not possible. The scheme will allow closed-loop hospitality businesses to have their material collected for free, saving them money while keeping up the high levels of recycling. I am aware that CSL continues to work with the hospitality industry to ensure a smooth working of the scheme. I call Liam Kerr to be followed by Clare Adamson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The minister was asked whether there might be liabilities arising and confirmed that there will be. So can the minister tell me what is the total liability expressed as a figure for registered producers and retailer contractual commitments for RVMs resulting from this delay? This is a matter of the contractual agreement between Circularity Scotland and the producers. The member can be reassured that only the very largest producers, those making more than 10 million units per year, are required to underwrite the cost. It is an agreement between a private company and their customers. It is not a matter for the Scottish Government. I call Clare Adamson to be followed by Mercedes Villal. Prior to Brexit, which Scotland did not want, we had regulatory divergent and this Parliament could be secure in legislative and devolved areas. The constitution, Europe, external affairs and culture committee has consistently raised concerns about the lack of transparency about the frameworks and the nature of the relationship between the Governments and how they are developing. The two-year delay of the UK Government in its decision on internal markets' access to exclusions under the common frameworks can only leave the impression that the UK Government is trampling over the devolution settlement. Does the minister agree? I share the member's deep frustration. Let me be clear that this should not be how devolution works. I am deeply concerned by the broader implications of the UK Government using its powers under the internal market act in this way to undermine the common frameworks and devolved decisions taken by this Parliament. The Welsh Government is also concerned about this. The common frameworks were meant to provide a means to resolve issues such as these, and my ask to the UK Government is clear. We need to follow the process, the agreed published process, engage constructively and agree an exclusion quickly. This is the best outcome, not just for Scotland and Scottish businesses, but for the UK as a whole. In February this year, the circular economy minister claimed that there were 500 new jobs out for recruitment as part of the deposit return scheme, including 60 in Aberdeen, all of which contribute to our just transition. In March, the minister announced that 664 businesses had registered with the scheme ahead of the August launch. So, can the minister share what assessments the Scottish Government has made into the impact of this significant delay on these new jobs and on the cost to those businesses and organisations who have already invested in changes to their operations as part of the scheme? The member is quite right. Many businesses in Scotland have invested heavily toward the August launch date, including recruiting people, setting up IT systems, getting ready to install reverse vending machines. This delay, which is caused from the prevarication of the UK Government to give us only weeks from the launch of the scheme, something we asked for two years ago, the prevarication of the UK Government to issue this exemption has absolutely been frustrating for me and for those businesses who have made that substantial investment. As I said, the member quoted me accurately, I think that delay by the UK Government is a kick in the teeth to those businesses who have worked so hard toward that, but the businesses may be reassured that that investment is not lost. That investment will be valuable toward working to our March first launch, because the Scottish Government is committed to deposit return and we will be working toward a successful launch in March next year. The minister mentioned trading standards in her statement. I wonder if she could expand a little bit on that as to exactly what agreement she needs from trading standards. Does that include the question of how deposits will be displayed in the price and is the UK Government being constructive in this regard? I thank the member very much for this question. This is a really important question that affects Scottish businesses and, in fact, businesses all across the UK as they implement their deposit return schemes. Trading standards have indicated that their interpretation of the price-marking legislation is that the deposit must be included in the price displayed for a product. We believe that their approach risks confusion for customers. We believe that it is important that it is clear that the deposit on products is refundable and therefore do not believe that it should be included in the price displayed but instead highlighted separately, as the deposit return regulations require. This is the approach of DRS schemes in other countries. Trading standards is a reserved policy, so we cannot adjust the regulations ourselves. However, we have called on the UK Government to amend the relevant legislation that does not explicitly cover deposit return schemes to make it clear that the deposit price can be displayed separately. Scottish Government officials are working closely with DEFRA, the Welsh Government and the Department of Business and Trade, to seek a consistent approach to deposit pricing across the UK, particularly as we believe that the UK will want a similar approach, as we are proposing, when they launch their own scheme. Security Scotland's role is to deliver the scheme, as per Government instruction. SIPA is the regulator of the scheme, but despite hundreds of questions that have been asked by the minister, we are still unclear to her role. Perhaps the minister would take this opportunity to tell us what her responsibilities are, and will she finally commit to working with all MSPs across the chamber who are incidentally supportive of a workable DRS scheme, ditch the positive squirming and listen to affected industries when they raise legitimate concerns? As I have gone through in detail when the member on my right asked the question, I have engaged with businesses that are effectively producers and retailers. I have spoken with MSPs in this chamber. I have done extensive engagement, and that is how we have this series of impact changes that we have made to the DRS, changes to the operational scheme that we have done specifically to address what industry has asked for. I have given extensive detail—I am sure that the Presiding Officer does not want me to go through it again—of exactly all the ways that we have listened to businesses to get ready for this launch. We have 10 months ahead of us to our March 1 date, and I am really looking forward to and have constructive engagement again with retailers and producers on Tuesday as to how we are going to work together to become a really effective delivery body to get this scheme launched successfully on March 1, and I am looking forward to doing just that. I call Christine Grahame to be followed by Liam McArthur. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I know that the minister has met recently with representatives of producers and retailers, which is good, but has she met with RMES Resource Management Association Scotland, which I have? It represents 400 companies, small region enterprise, operating and waste management, with 6,690 employees, because they have conserved before having them monopoly. Those businesses will be put out of work, and those jobs are at risk. I have met with RMES some time ago—not specifically on this matter, though. I share the member's concern about the impact on existing recyclers and waste companies. My officials have been in discussion with CSL about this matter, and we are clear that we must harness the opportunities for existing recyclers within the DRS scheme. As such, CSL has indicated that, as part of Biff's responsibility for building and operating an efficient and effective collections network, they are in active discussions with several existing waste collection companies to explore how those organisations can work with Biffa for DRS. They remain keen to engage with other such companies and have a dedicated forum on their website to allow firms to make contact and open up discussions. I urge recycling and waste companies to do just that and get in contact with Biffa. Thank you. This is a remarkable statement as an exercise in blame shifting that is both ill-advised and lacking in self-awareness. Over the past two years, I have spoken to many businesses, not one of which has mentioned the UK Government, all of whom have criticised the Scottish Government's approach. The minister says that she has set out further changes today. She has insisted that this is a genuinely industry-led scheme. Therefore, can she confirm that she will be open to considering any other changes that, particularly small businesses, believe are still required? Minister. I thank the member for his statement. I have been engaging with businesses large and small, with trade associations, and the number one thing that businesses have raised with me as their concern is uncertainty around the scheme, and particularly the uncertainty created by the lack of the UK Government issuing this exclusion on the internal market. Specifically, businesses are saying to me, why should I invest in this scheme, which the UK Government, Alistair Jack, is saying, he might veto? Why should they put millions of pounds of their money on the line when the UK Government is creating this level of uncertainty? The businesses that I have spoken to have either held or paused their investment or told me they are not willing to participate in the scheme until the UK Government gives them that clarity. That clarity we need first off from the UK Government. However, as I have outlined today, I have been listening clearly to businesses at all stages, and the simplification measures announced today are significant, particularly for small producers, that limit of 5,000 units, which applies to producers of all sizes, but in particular is his benefit for small producers who do not wish to have a deposit on their items. They could have a deposit on their items if they want to. They can still opt in in that way, but that means that 44 per cent, 44 per cent of the smallest producers will not have a deposit on their articles, which is a significant support and exactly the kind of measure that small businesses have been asking for. I call Mark Ruskell to be followed by Fergus Ewing. Across the country, I can see DRS facilities appearing in supermarkets, sorting centres being built and hundreds of jobs being created. With over 95 per cent of the market for cans and bottles already signed up, businesses and the minister should actually be getting congratulated for getting the UK's first DRS scheme this close to being launched. However, given that huge private sector investment that has already been delivered in our communities, can the minister ask what the reaction from those businesses has been to the continued failure of the UK Government to grant an exemption under the Internal Markets Act? For all the moaning and groaning in theatrics to my left here, it is a fact that we need an exclusion issued on the I Internal Market Act for this scheme to be launched. That is an absolute fact. I absolutely share the member's deep frustration. Let me be clear that this should not be how defolusion works. Businesses work best when they have certainty, and that is what they have asked us and the UK Government for. The continuing uncertainty on the UK Government position is undermining progress. We are hearing businesses are pausing for their preparation and investment until a UK Government decision is agreed. I continue to urge the UK Government to agree the exclusion as soon as possible to provide certainty for businesses. However, on a happier note, I am also excited to start seeing reverse vending machines in shops and to see that it is actually happening. People are tweeting when they are seeing them in shops and stuff, and it is really exciting to see that start to happen. The minister has mentioned devolution. Surely the aim of devolution is to do things better, not just to do things differently for the sake of it. Does she not agree, and will she agree to, the main two business asks that are outstanding? One is to remove glass from scope, as it is in the UK, and two, given the further delay, which I predict will be extended, there should be alignment with the UK, thereby removing double costing, double labelling and 700 lost jobs that will happen in the waste management sector, and all the detritus of the dire complexity of a broken, defective scheme. I often forget that Fergus Ewing is not a member of the Conservative party, given the support that he is getting there. That was quite an impressive round of applause for him. Greenpeace says, and I quote, that, in what kind of world is collecting glass drinks containers not an essential part of a system designed to collect drinks containers? Of the 44 schemes around the world that already exist, 40 of them collect glass. It is normal for that glass to be part of this scheme. Indeed, Maurice Golden wrote an extensive web blog post on it, which he has since deleted, but I can quote you from if anyone interested in hearing what Maurice Golden used to say about the benefits of glass before he rethought his position. I am, of course, very disappointed that the UK Government has chosen to exclude glass for the scheme. Does the minister please resume your seat a second point of order? Point of order. I have not deleted any article ever, and I think that it is absolutely outrageous to be accused of that from a minister in this place. I have not changed my position on DRS, and there is no way that I should be slandered in this place by a minister of the Scottish Government. Minister, could I respond to the point of order, please? I thank Maurice Golden for his contribution. That, of course, is not a point of order. It does not engage myself as the Presiding Officer in the chair. The member has made his point, and it is on the record. Minister, please resume. I will be delighted that anyone can presumably go on to the web and find this quote from Maurice's blog post, which says that we have an opportunity to create an ambitious and inclusive UK-wide scheme, including glass, which will tackle litter and improve recycling rates. Obviously, I am disappointed that the UK Government has not chosen to go with the global norm of including glass in the scheme. It will reduce the environmental effectiveness of the scheme. Glass is one of the most common items to pollute our beaches and public spaces. It is also one of the litter items that causes most concern, particularly among parents and pet owners, because of its potential to cause injury. In Scotland, we will continue to include glass in our scheme because it is the right thing to do. As the gap between any Scottish scheme and one in the rest of the UK continues to narrow, will the minister use the next 10 months to seek to ensure that any Scottish scheme aligns as close as possible to other schemes in the UK in areas such as labelling, product size and exemptions? My South Scotland constituents on the border who routinely purchase products on either side of the border in their daily lives should be able to return those products to either side of the border wherever they purchase them. Absolutely. I can reassure the member that we are committed to the interoperability of the scheme, and today's announcement on the 100 milliliter containers will be part of that alignment. Of course, I am very much hoping that the UK will align with us and include glass in their scheme. I thank the minister for her statement, which I know will be welcomed by smaller producers, such as Williams Brothers, based on my constituency, who I met with her this week, particularly if the extended consultation works closely with SMEs. I agree and endorse what the minister has said by the fact that the Tory party does not know whether it wants to support it, oppose it or just play constitutional politics in order to disrupt the process. Could the minister also give reassurances that discussions will take place with supermarkets and other retailers to ensure that smaller producers who are excluded from the scheme are not adversely impacted by retailers only stocking registered scheme articles? I thank the member very much for the question. Of course, it is important to note that even those small producers whose items are excluded from the scheme still need to register with SIPA and give them the information on their quantities so that they can be properly excluded and follow the rules properly. It is a commercial decision for individual businesses whether they wish to participate in the important environmental scheme by selling products on the Scottish market. However, we would encourage any business to contact Circulary Scotland in the first instance for support and to discuss any concerns that it has about participating in the scheme. I apologise for arriving slightly late for the statement. Despite some concessions today, lawness leader is still just kicking the can down the road. Can she explain what compensation she is considering for small hospitality operators who may already have incurred considerable costs? Although claim downs are the order of the day, will she now do the right thing and exclude small pubs and restaurants altogether? As I have already outlined in terms of the exclusions for hospitality businesses, small pubs, night clubs and so on, who only operate as a closed loop, were already excluded from acting as return points. That was already part of that. They have to be part of the scheme as a closed loop matter because when they buy these items they will have a deposit and by participating as a closed loop they get that money back. They are going to need to get that money back. They have to participate as a closed loop but we are accepting them from acting as a return point. Today's announcement means that further hospitality businesses, those who for most of their products are consumed in-house, will not be obliged to act as a return point. That simplifies things a great deal for hospitality businesses. For those closed loop hospitality businesses, they will have those materials collected for free that is a substantial cost saving to those businesses and that is how we are supporting the hospitality industry. Thank you minister. That concludes the statement, which I allowed to run on if I could just finish briefly for a bit longer because there was such an interest on the part of members across the chamber wishing to ask questions and I apologise to the few members that I was not able to fit in because we did allow the statement to run on quite considerably to accommodate as many members as possible. The minister referred to a blog post that I have made. I have never written a blog and therefore I could not have published a blog and then subsequently deleted it and I would appreciate if the minister would correct the official record and apologise because it is outrageous to suggest that I have done something which I have not and it might be considered an abuse of ministerial privilege to do so. I thank Maurice Golden for his further contribution. Obviously correction of the record is a matter for the member concerned and that is what I can say as the Presiding Officer. Further point of order from Mark Ruskell. On a further point of order, Presiding Officer, I think it is important that members provide accurate information on the record and I have just been sat here at my desk actually reading the said blog from Maurice Golden from 2019, which I believe is in an archive so it makes very interesting reading and I think it is just important, Presiding Officer, that all members are accurate and truthful about their previous positions on matters of policy as well as their current positions. I would advise Mr Ruskell that that is not a point of order either. Thank you. I believe that it is now time to move on to the next item of business but before that there will be a short pause to allow front bench please Mr Kerr to allow front bench teams to change positions should they so wish. Thank you.