Chamber and committees

Jackie Dunbar wants to ask some questions.

I fear that the person for whom you are substituting might not allow you to take her place. I might have misjudged that, though—I do not want to put words in her mouth.

Minister, I have a question for you to start with, before I make a comment. When do you perceive laying the set of regulations, or the statutory instrument, to replace this statutory instrument?

Amend it.

That probably proves that we have quite a clunky system—I think that that was the description. If there had been an act before the SSI, you could have done it by other procedures—by the made affirmative procedure, I think, for those people who are interested—but there is not, so we are struggling a wee bit with the fact that this is the only way of doing it. We cannot use the made affirmative procedure in this case, so the process appears quite clunky. On that note, I thank you for your evidence.

We move straight to agenda item 4, which is the formal consideration of motion S6M-09033, calling on the committee to recommend approval of the Deposit and Return Scheme for Scotland Amendment Regulations 2023. I remind members that only the minister or members of the committee may speak in the debate. Minister, would you like to speak to this and move the motion—[Interruption.]

That was a bang and a half. If you did not hear me, minister, I asked that you speak to and move the motion.

So that instrument will need a lot more scrutiny, will it?

So there will be no other regulations in that statutory instrument apart from those to do with the date.

Welcome back. Our next item is consideration of an instrument laid under the negative procedure, which means that its provisions will come into force unless the Parliament agrees to a motion to annul it. No motions to annul have been lodged.

If members have no comments on the instrument—[Interruption.]—I am sorry, Ms Dunbar.

Thank you. Does the committee agree that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Before we move on to the next item of business, minister, and while you have your team around you, it would be helpful if we could explore a wee bit why we are going on to that item, which is on an affirmative Scottish statutory instrument that will delay the scheme that was put before Parliament to March 2024 and will modify it, although we know that it will not start then.

What have you done to expedite the outcome so that the committee can consider something that is—it appears to me and might appear so to people outside Parliament—purely a delaying process that kicks some parts of the scheme down the road so that we do not have a start date? Could we have done something different, whereby the committee considered an SSI to put the whole DRS on hold, rather than amending the scheme before recess? I would like to hear your views on that; people who are watching would find it helpful.

Okay. My point is that I would slightly question, therefore, where the failure is if you have not got to that level of granularity.