Seòmar agus comataidhean

Why put in a date in March 2024 and not a date in October 2025?

Minister, the regulations make other amendments, as you pointed out, and I understand the reason for that. You talked about the need for collaboration and the need to discuss changes to the scheme with the UK Government. Have the changes that you are asking the committee to agree to today been discussed and agreed with the UK Government—in the collaborative way that you talked about earlier—to ensure alignment?

That is not what I asked about, minister. I asked about the timescale. Was my reflection on your timescale correct?

I will make a brief contribution. I understand the difficulty of the timing, but I am deeply uncomfortable that the committee is almost being bounced into agreeing this motion—and I do not mean that in a pejorative way. I just find it deeply unsatisfactory to agree to a motion that we know will not be actioned next March, and I do not entirely understand why it cannot be changed. If it meant that the committee or the Parliament would have to sit during recess, that would be fine in my view—there are more than 40 days between now and 16 August. It is better to do things right, rather than quickly.

However, I appreciate that we do not have that choice, so I do not expect to vote against the motion. Indeed, it is for those reasons that I will vote for it. My observation on the substantive amendments that we looked at is that, although they might be the right way to go—and I listened to Mark Ruskell’s questions in this respect—I still find it difficult to understand why, given what we heard earlier, this has not at the least been discussed with the UK Government. The minister could have said, “Look, events of the past few weeks have caused changes to the Scottish scheme. Why are we not trying to make sure that there is alignment so that there will be no further changes?”

That is just an observation, however. I appreciate the situation that the minister has set out. For that reason, I am likely to vote for the regulations.

Good morning, minister. Prior to deciding to pause the scheme, did the Scottish Government take formal legal advice on the impact of that decision?

Did the Government take advice specifically on the decision to pause the scheme? It is a yes or no question.

There is no longer any scheme to administer, which presumably means that business cannot continue to support CSL. Will the Scottish Government fund CSL in future? If not, what will happen to CSL?

What is the nature of the £9 million start-up funding for CSL from the Scottish National Investment Bank? What will happen to that investment?

Oh dear.

If its source of funding decides not to fund it because there is no scheme to administer in the immediate future, how will CSL keep going? How will it fund itself, minister?