Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

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.

Minister, from your evidence so far, it would appear as though the Scottish Government is open to a four-nations approach where, if there were any concerns about the interoperability of the level of deposit, labelling, or the size of the container, those could be worked out and it would be maybe not essential but desirable for there to be that maximum alignment across all four nations.

Has the UK Government had opportunities to raise concerns about what labelling might look like in Scotland, what the size of container might be and what the level of deposit might be? If it has had those opportunities, has it had those opportunities for six months, for the past year or for the past two years? Have those concerns ever been raised with the Scottish Government?

Thank you.

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.

Minister, it is interesting that you mention being here a few weeks ago, because I want to go back to the future a little bit. When I was first elected, in 2007, a young constituent of mine in Sighthill who was originally from Mogadishu in Somalia could not go to university because of the rules and regulations at the time. I made representations to the then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, Fiona Hyslop, and regulations were put in place to allow young people from asylum-seeking families to go to university. This is something that we have fixed and dealt with appropriately previously. Unfortunately, through the passage of time, we have not been as attentive to the legislation as we should have been, to make sure that future generations of young people who are in the asylum process can have their right to an education.

Will the new regulations be kept under review to make sure that we do not find ourselves in that back-to-the-future position again, given that the Scottish Government previously did the right thing and my constituent was the first asylum-seeking under-18 to go to university in Scotland with a fully funded place?

I thought that I was giving the appropriate context. I have got City of Glasgow College to accept that it will charge my constituent home student fees if they can take up their place and have no right to funding from the Student Awards Agency Scotland. Is the Government looking at any pot of cash—I know that this is hugely challenging in the current times—that students might be able to access when the higher education institution has agreed and is willing to charge home student fees when they do not have to, to allow my constituent and others to access higher education?