SCOTTISH Labour are accused of having “abandoned the principles of devolution” after a peer called for the UK Government to use a Section 35 order to block the upcoming Deposit Return Scheme (DRS).
The controversial section of the Scotland Act – which gives the Scottish Secretary the power to unilaterally prevent bills from becoming law – was used for the first time by Alister Jack to block gender reforms backed by MSPs at Holyrood.
Speaking in the Lords on Monday, Labour peer George Foulkes called on Jack to also use Section 35 to block the DRS scheme, which is set to begin on August 16 and will see shoppers paying an extra 20p when purchasing drinks in a can or bottle, with the deposit returned when they bring it back for recycling.
He said: “If this goes ahead, manufacturers, including small manufacturers, will have to produce separate bottles and cans for Scotland and for England, which will be enormously expensive.
“If they do not, can he imagine the trade that might take place at Carlisle or Gretna, with people gathering the bottles that are worth 10p and going from England to Scotland and making hundreds and thousands of pounds. The whole thing is total chaos.
“This is a very good idea, but it must be done on a United Kingdom basis, so there is not this confusion. Will the Minister talk immediately with the Secretary of State for Scotland and see if he can impose Section 35 of the Scotland Act, stop this nonsense straight away and make sure a UK scheme is introduced, which would benefit the whole of the United Kingdom?”
Richard Benyon, a Tory peer and environment minister, said he agreed with “everything” Foulkes had said.
READ MORE: Humza Yousaf 'happy' to be called the continuity candidate in SNP leadership race
Saying he had spoken to Jack about the issue on Monday morning, Benyon went on: “He [Jack] is absolutely resolute that the points raised by the noble Lord are the case and are a serious problem, particularly in cross-border trade – even the letter that I quoted earlier talks about the risk of fraud.
“But this fits in with a pattern – on educational attainment, on ferries, on drug policy – that the people of his country have to endure with the Government in Scotland.
“We want to make sure that on environmental policy such as this there is an alignment. It is perfectly possible for all four countries of the Union to work through a scheme and implement it gently, in a way that does not have great inflationary costs and does not damage business, but that works with the grain of public opinion, which wants to see more recycling, less litter and a scheme that works.”
The Scottish Greens, whose minister and co-leader Lorna Slater (below) is leading on the DRS project, condemned Foulkes’s comments.
Mark Ruskell MSP said: “This is proof absolute that Labour has abandoned the principles of devolution and is actively campaigning against the will of the Scottish people. What’s even worse is that they are siding with the Tories in doing so.”
He said the call for a Section 35 from a Labour parliamentarian was “disgraceful” and would be a “stain on every Labour politician here in Scotland”.
Ruskell went on: “It is bad enough that their leader Sir Keir Starmer has rolled over on Brexit, abandoned the EU and failed to hold the Tories to account over the cost of living crisis.
“The fact that they are now openly campaigning against the work of Holyrood is nothing short of a betrayal of Scotland and of the electorate.
READ MORE: Further delay to Deposit Return Scheme would be ‘frankly unbearable’, say campaigners
“The Scottish Government’s Deposit Return Scheme goes further and faster than anything yet on the table from the UK Government, which, time and again, has shown a total disregard for our environment.
“When it comes to legitimacy, we will take no lessons from them.”
Scottish Labour has been approached for comment.
In the SNP leadership race, both Kate Forbes and Ash Regan have expressed concern about the DRS. Forbes said the scheme should be paused to allow businesses breathing space and to avoid economic harm, while Regan also said it was “not ready to go live”.
Humza Yousaf has said he would exclude small businesses from the scheme for the first year.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel