���˿���

I am glad that Mr Ruskell has come in at this point.

Very good.

I do not think there is any point in putting targets in law—or, indeed, putting anything in law—if there is no redress if the targets are missed. [Interruption.] Would you like me to stop while the window closes, convener?

Thank you, convener. I will start by apologising to the committee because I have 40-plus amendments in this group. I promise to spend no longer than five minutes on each, and I have no doubt that the minister will do the same, which is about six hours’ worth—[Interruption.] Of course I am jesting, convener, before you jump in.

Last week, I argued that the two-year deadline for publishing the circular economy strategy was too long and pushed for it to be cut to a year. The minister was not at all keen on that and wanted it to remain at two years. At one point, Mr Ruskell even argued that there should not be a deadline, until he realised that there was one in the bill and reappraised his stance.

With that in mind, I wish to fall into line with the minister and propose only two-year deadlines in my many amendments in this group. Therefore, I will not press amendment 5 or move the other amendments that would create a one-year deadline. Those are amendments 7, 19, 21, 30, 32, 40, 42, 47, 49, 51, 53, 61, 63, 68, 70, 73 and 75.

Convener, I notice that the clerk is talking to you. Is it a procedural matter?

It might help with your decision making, convener, if I give you warning that, in the following group, I will be speaking at some length. I just wanted to let you know that.

My arguments with regard to amendment 28 are very similar to those that Mr Lumsden has just made. The amendment deals with the issue of the internal market act as it relates to section 9 of the bill, which is the power to require imposition of charges for single-use items.

I do not need to remind the committee of the importance of complying with that power; whether members think we should or not is neither here nor there, because we must deal with reality. Allow me, if you will, convener, to quote fairly extensively from the committee’s report, which I thought was excellent. It says:

“We also recognise that some key matters are reserved and that the Scottish Government must work within the requirements of the UK Internal Market Act.”

It also says, on page 4:

“The framework nature of the Bill also means the Committee cannot express an authoritative view as to whether regulations made under the Bill (if enacted) would be likely to trigger the market access principles within the UK Internal Market Act 2020, with a risk of undermining their effectiveness.”

Again, the report says, on page 25:

“The Internal Market Act creates two key market access principles which operate in the post-Brexit environment: the mutual recognition principle and the nondiscrimination principle. These—

‘... serve to disapply relevant requirements in one part of the UK when goods or services are lawfully provided in another part of the UK. The principles will permit access to the Scottish market of goods and services which originate elsewhere in the UK under different regulatory conditions. This is likely to have a substantial impact on the effectiveness of devolved regulatory regimes.’”

On page 26, it says:

“It was widely accepted during Stage 1 that the Internal Market Act has the potential to significantly affect the operation of the Bill if it were to become law: potentially a ‘massive impact’ according to some stakeholders.”

My amendment, which relates to section 9, says that the Scottish Government must consult with the secretary of state, whoever that is, and provide a statement that he or she is content that the regulations comply with the internal market act. I think that Mr Lumsden’s amendment does the same. Given the committee’s comments in its report, which I have just quoted, I would have thought that it would support this position. However, I have thought that before when I have quoted the committee’s report, so we will just have to wait and see.

It has been an interesting session so far, although clearly a bit frustrating for some of my colleagues. I would like to go right back to the beginning of the meeting, to a question that the convener and the deputy convener asked. I am still not sure what the answer is. The question was whether you accept the recommendations of the Auditor General.

As the deputy convener said to you, Mr Irwin, your answer was not clear. You said that you accepted the “broad thrust” of the recommendations, but wanted to probe deeper into them. When you answered Mr Greene, I think that I heard you say that there was only one recommendation—the first one, which is on page 5 of the briefing—that you were not too happy with. Is that the only one?

Apart from the first recommendation, you accept all the recommendations and you will act on them.

That would be very useful. Mr Beattie asked about funding, and he was very frustrated at the answers that he received, so perhaps I will have a go. Page 13 of the Auditor General’s briefing refers to areas relating to direct investment by the Scottish Government. There is a list. How comprehensive is it? Do you have it there?

That is clear enough. I think I have covered everything, convener.

I do not know why you did not just say that right at the beginning, but that is clear now.

I cannot remember whether it was Mr Irwin or Mr Grisewood who said that this is a 10-year strategy and that 17 actions had been carried out and 44 are in progress. Is there a list of those?

But you have no costs for them.