Seòmar agus comataidhean

Right; okay. That is all from me for now, convener.

My question is for Ewan MacDonald-Russell and is about unintended consequences. Is there a risk that retailers will simply move their distribution network south of the border, where reporting and penalties might well be different?

I guess that the Government would say that the more data you have, the more you can measure the problem and then try to improve the situation. Do you not feel that there are advantages to some Scottish businesses by reporting more? You mentioned software upgrades. Better use of technology might enable your members to reduce the amount of waste that they have and in return increase their profitability.

What criteria should the Scottish Government apply when deciding what waste streams should be subject to or exempt from reporting?

Was there any way to avoid Circularity Scotland going into administration? Could that have been avoided by having some sort of scheme?

The Scottish National Investment Bank’s annual report is out tomorrow. Should we expect heavy losses as a result of this?

Does anyone else want to add to that?

Would there not have been a case to proceed with something to try to ensure that the Scottish National Investment Bank’s £9 million investment did not go down the pan?

To go back to my point, was there no way of saving Circularity Scotland and the £9 million of investment?

It looks like £9 million of taxpayers’ money will be lost. That was not done just to pick a fight with the UK Government, was it, minister?