Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is a good point. I would be interested in hearing the minister’s reflection on what the resource requirements would be within Government to monitor and meaningfully engage with those statements. We already have grants going out to organisations, and there is already a process of monitoring and reporting on how grants are being delivered and whether objectives are being delivered. Within those objectives, it would be appropriate to have a circular economy focus. That would deliver benefits to the organisation and public benefits through the funds that are being distributed and are supporting the work of those organisations.

I will turn to other amendments in the group. Bob Doris’s amendment 197 requires large companies to report on their scope 3 climate emissions. I am sympathetic to that and keen to hear what the minister’s view is on the amendment.

Graham Simpson’s amendment 72 would require the Government to develop, by law, an app to provide information on the disposal of household waste. I do not know whether that would be a first—a Government having to deliver an app by law. I am curious to understand why a national app would be required at this point, when many councils already have that information available online, but we will come to Mr Simpson in due course.

Monica Lennon’s amendments 171 to 173 would insert requirements for information on food waste, recycling and textiles to be made publicly available. I am sympathetic to what the amendments are trying to achieve. Again, I will listen carefully to the minister when she comes to address amendments 171 and 173, to see what progress can be made on the intention behind those amendments.

I move amendment 196.

Would the member reflect on the fact that his colleagues often use the phrase “extremist Greens”? Does he believe that that is acceptable, or that it is in fact fuelling a lack of consensus in the chamber?

I will try to strike a note of consensus with Maurice Golden. I am a trier, so I will at least try. I share the disappointment and sense of loss that the 2030 climate target is now out of reach, although I am heartened that net zero by 2045 remains achievable and on track.

The 2030 target was agreed on a cross-party basis, and there were two factors that drove the target upwards and, admittedly, beyond the advice of the Climate Change Committee. The first was the science of what is needed in this decade to globally reduce emissions and the recognition in 2019 that to achieve that in a fair way means that Scotland needs to do far more than countries in the global south. The second reason the target was set so high in the 2019 act was the deep frustration at a lack of Government action, especially in the areas of agriculture, transport and housing. Sectors that had seen next to no progress for decades were able to hide behind the big emissions reductions that were achieved from renewable electricity generation, but it was obvious that, going forward, there would be no place to hide.

The belief in 2019 was that a high target with the most robust legal framework in the world behind it would drive the action that was missing from the previous Scottish climate change plans. That belief was pushed very hard by people in the climate movement, and they found cross-party support for it in the chamber, but the hope that the 2030 target would drive climate action demonstrably failed. The climate plan that was published in 2020 did not show a credible path to the 2030 target, and the UK CCC warned that the Government needed to double down on action if it was to have any hope of meeting it.

I am trying to strike a consensus with Mr Golden. His initial speech did not strike a consensus and confirmed my decision not to sign the motion.

I turn back to the substance of the debate. Mr Golden will remember that the Parliament’s committees were scathing in their analysis of the climate change plan. Cross-party committees suggested more than 80 recommendations to improve the plan. That was the point at which the 2030 target was lost because, without the commitment to early transformative action, an already stretching target very quickly became completely unachievable.

Covid certainly did not help with the Government’s focus, and Westminster austerity has decimated the availability of the capital investment that is needed for programmes. However, fundamentally, a climate plan that failed to put the action that was needed up front was always going to lead to an unachievable target.

For Greens, entering the Bute house agreement and the Scottish Government for the first time, in 2021, was always going to be a risk, but I am proud of the achievements of our group over the past two and a half years as a result of working constructively with SNP ministers on climate issues. I ask those ministers to build on that momentum rather than to dismantle it.

For example, the heat in buildings programme, which was spearheaded by Patrick Harvie, has been singled out by the CCC as a template for the rest of the UK. It is a clear example of the action that was needed back in 2020 to build up supply chains, get costs down, drive through regulations and start planning for major investments. I urge ministers to build on that work in order to reach a critical mass of action, with the number of retrofits of homes accelerating year on year.

There are many other areas in which ambition and action have been accelerated by having Greens in the Government, from the doubling of onshore wind capacity that is under way to the unprecedented scale of active travel infrastructure that is appearing in our towns and cities.

Critically, those who argue for strong targets need to commit to the action that is needed to meet them. I say to Mr Golden that the contradictions play out in the chamber all the time. Just the other week, Tory MSPs—many of whom are here today—championed another members’ business debate, on stopping new electricity pylon lines. If they are successful in their campaign, there will be no way for Scotland or the UK to come anywhere near to meeting our climate obligations. That is a fact.

The 2030 target might be lost—I grieve for it—but the need for action has never been greater. All members of this Parliament must commit to such action or be prepared to tell future generations why they sold them out.

The Secretary of State for Scotland made the unilateral decision to block Scotland’s deposit return scheme. He has refused to come to Parliament to explain that decision to MSPs and has failed to provide the evidence that was requested by the Scottish and Welsh Governments for why he excluded glass from the UK scheme, which is, as the minister rightly said, a “non-existent” scheme. The decision has made a mockery of the devolved settlement. [Interruption.]

What has been the wider impact on policy making here in this Parliament, when we have a UK Government that is prepared to act in a reckless way, cheered on by those who do not have the interests of Scotland’s environment at heart?

Will the member acknowledge that we are all wrestling with policy choices when it comes to climate change? Does he recognise that dualling every last inch of the A96 will make it harder for us to meet climate change targets, not easier?

That is fine.

I turn to Jan Robertson and Ewen Cameron. We are now in a phase where there are border checks for goods that are coming into the UK. We have taken evidence from a number of businesses that have supply chains that run not just within the UK but across Europe. I am interested to know how, with your European colleagues, you support the whole supply chain. Is there now a conversation about how the existing border checks have been working? What lessons can be learned on imports? What are the top tips, whether we are talking about drivers or minimising paperwork bureaucracy? How do you work together to ensure that business, wherever it is located in Europe, is able to negotiate and navigate the bureaucracy that Brexit has thrown up?

Are there any other sectors that struggle with that?

David, I will ask you about the big policy drivers towards decarbonisation—in particular, the impact of the carbon border adjustment model and the integration of emissions trading schemes in the UK, EU and Switzerland. Where are there barriers to establishing more efficient carbon markets? What is the likelihood of bigger markets and more integration across Europe? I know that that is a big question.

That is the reality of how that massive sector is developing. What does that mean for individuals such as yourself who are looking to go where the work is? Is that becoming increasingly difficult under Brexit? Is there still flexibility? Can you find a way through the visa requirements so that you could be working in Paris this year but perhaps somewhere else next year?