���˿���

That has been a very reasonable line of questioning. I am just passing through this committee; I am here for one evidence session only, but it is fascinating.

I am not sighted on the cost to industry for the years when the scheme is not in existence, but there is still a cost to endure there. It appears, minister, that the experience, learning, infrastructure and expertise that Circularity Scotland has built up in recent times would be of direct benefit to the UK Government and to the other devolved nations. I know that Circularity Scotland is an independent organisation that is separate from Government, but is the Scottish Government doing anything to join those dots and be an active party by saying to the UK Government, “Look at this experience, learning, infrastructure and expertise. Let us get round the table and look to see how we can make sure that this organisation is sustainable,” so that the UK Government actually makes those decisions? In theory, that could in part lead to a financial commitment from the UK Government.

I am in your hands, convener. We are half way through a line of questioning by Liam Kerr that raises additional questions on which I would like clarity, which is why I would like to ask some questions under this agenda item.

Minister, I can well imagine the fake outrage, had the Scottish Government withdrawn this set of regulations, brought in others and tried to bulldoze those through the DPLR Committee and this committee before recess. Some people in this room, who are now criticising our putting these regulations through, would express absolute outrage if the Government sought to bulldoze through other regulations. I leave that sitting there and go to my substantive question.

You have a meeting tomorrow with Rebecca Pow. Can you confirm that the UK Government does not have a power of veto over individual statutory instruments and regulations that the Scottish Government brings to the Parliament? That would be quite helpful.

However, I take it that you take cognisance of what UK ministers say. Is it possible that, following discussions with Rebecca Pow tomorrow, the final details of what is in a fresh statutory instrument might change slightly, depending on those discussions? If they might, it would not make sense to withdraw these regulations, bring in fresh ones, then bring in a third set further down the line.

I want to know a little more about that meeting tomorrow with Rebecca Pow, because it would be crazy to have three different sets of regulations going about, as some on the committee might anticipate.

Thank you.

Good morning, convener, and thank you for having me. As is customary on such occasions, I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which is publicly available on the Parliament’s website. However, I do not need to draw the committee’s attention to anything in particular. I am glad to be joining you for this morning’s evidence session.

I will be brief, as Mr Ruskell has made some of the comments that I wanted to make.

Somewhere during our robust scrutiny session, the point about the progress made in working with business got a little bit lost in amongst all the process. Mr Ruskell has put that on record pretty well. Having listened to colleagues and having asked lots of questions, I believe that this matter would benefit from more scrutiny, not less. A fresh set of regulations and a statutory instrument returning in September for scrutiny would be no bad thing for the committee and the Parliament. Supporting this statutory instrument is the way of securing that and of making sure that we do not have a scheme that starts in August—which, after all, would not be possible.

As for what Mr Kerr has just said—and I note that he tried to be conciliatory in his remarks—there have been many opportunities over the past three years for the UK Government to raise its concerns, but it did not do so until the past few weeks. We should not lose sight of that when we look at why we are in this situation. It needs to be put on the record, yet again: the requirement for a further set of regulations and further statutory instruments lies squarely at the door of the UK Government.

That said, I think that the statutory instrument that the committee has to pass is perfectly competent. If I were to be invited back to the committee in September to scrutinise the new set of statutory instruments, I would look forward to it.

To be clear, there have been discussions through a common framework between the four nations over the past three years where it was hoped that there would be maximum alignment in relation to labelling, container size and the deposit, but at no point in those three years, despite the hope to get alignment, did the UK Government ever raise any issues about any of those things up until very recently. Is that right?

So, convener—

Well, it is relevant to the regulations.

I know, but we are here to scrutinise the regulations. Another issue that I have experienced is that universities have been reluctant to accept students with temporary leave to remain but an uncertain future because they might not be able to guarantee that they can finish their course. That might be a thing of the past now, but is the minister aware of that as having been an issue previously? Should that be an issue?

Okay. Thank you.