Seòmar agus comataidhean

I suggest that it is up to the Government to bring forward legislation that works, not legislation that does not. I also direct the minister to the Official Report of this meeting, where she will see that I clearly said that co-design could arrive at packages of measures that could be legislated for together. She might want to do that.

Finally, is this not a bit of a “Shakespeare in Love” approach to government? In the film, Geoffrey Rush’s character was frequently asked how on earth he was going to pull it off and deliver the play, and he said, “I don’t know. It’s a mystery.” Is that not the case with this, where we have a big plan, but we do not really know how it will be delivered?

We cannot amend. You understand that fundamental principle: we cannot amend and it is a single-stage process.

I quite agree that you do not want individual bits of legislation for individual items or processes. I also totally understand the need for co-design: you have to get the detail right. What I struggle to understand, however, is why that co-design cannot happen prior to legislation being introduced. By all means, why not do that co-design and bring forward legislation in stages to deal with things and package them up together—for example, following consultation and co-design, deal with single-use items and the coffee cup measures in conjunction with measures for plastic carrier bags? Is there not a risk, given the complexities and given that we are seeking to recoup the full costs of the recycling and waste that is incurred? That is inherently complicated. If you take this legislation forward in a piecemeal way without a degree of interrogation and the three-stage parliamentary process, is there not a danger that we will get that wrong? Can you clarify why we cannot do the co-design first, prior to legislation? Do you not accept that, if detail is important, it is better to have more scrutiny rather than less?

No, I am not.

I have been here before. [Laughter.]

I am slightly nervous, given the billing that I got at the beginning, when you described me as a “stalwart”, convener. I feel that I have something to live up to.

May I clarify a couple of points based on answers that have already been given this morning? Is it correct to say, first, that we do not know what the full costs of the bill will be, because provisions are subject to co-design, and, secondly, that we do not have a detailed co-design process or timetable in place? Are both correct?

I mean across the full scope of the bill. We do not know the full costs that will derive from the bill, because provisions are subject to co-design.

On the narrow question, we do not, because we cannot, yet know the full cost.

Can you clarify that we also do not know the co-design process that will be used and, therefore, the total cost of that? Is it correct that that process has not been set out yet?

The plans for how that design process works are not yet in the public domain. Is that correct?