Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not follow that, so I will press the minister, if I may. I am deeply uncomfortable that we are about to pass—you hope—regulations that move the date of implementation to March 2024, when this committee knows that that will not happen. It feels to me like the committee has been asked to agree to laws that we know are not competent and will not come in. Why are the regulations not expressed simply to say that they will not come into force on 16 August but will come in on a date in the future—or something—so that we do not pin them to a date that we know to be false?

Do standing orders prevent the consideration of regulations during a recess?

So they could have been considered during the recess.

No, but it is in the Parliament’s gift.

Just to be clear, the amendments that you are asking the committee to agree to today have not been discussed with the UK Government. You will discuss them with the minister tomorrow. We have just heard about the timescale and how tight it is, given that we are coming up to the recess. However, you have been discussing the amendments for months with industry. Is that correct, minister?

That is not what I asked, minister. Can we take it that, prior to pausing the scheme, no specific legal advice was sought on the impact of the pause?

I know. Did you take legal advice, minister—yes or no?

The First Minister said on Sunday that no compensation would be due from the Scottish Government to businesses that are out of pocket due to the aborted scheme. You will appreciate, minister, that there is always a risk of litigation. How much of a contingency has the Scottish Government budgeted in case the position is not as was set out by the First Minister, and in which budget line is that contingency?

A responsible Government would surely make a contingency, in case its position is not as that Government thinks it is.

I would like your response as a minister and a representative of the Scottish Government.