Seòmar agus comataidhean

Both amendments in this group are unnecessary. We have an internal market act in place; it puts restrictions on devolved Administrations and requires detailed conversations to be had through common frameworks. Those things exist. However, what the amendments do not do is compel the secretary of state or other UK ministers to consult Scottish ministers or compel the secretary of state to come up with a view on an internal market act exemption by a certain date. All of the power lies with the secretary of state, first, to decide whether to engage in a meaningful conversation and, secondly, to reflect on that and issue an internal market act exemption at a time of their choosing—or not, as the case might be.

The common frameworks have been working, up to a point. I am aware of early engagement between Ms Slater and the UK Government on single-use plastics; agreement was struck, and a way forward on those regulations was found on a four-nations basis. However, members will be aware that, when it came to the bottle and can deposit return scheme, no way forward was found. In fact, the Scottish Government had to wait an inordinate amount of time to finally get an exemption—an exemption that actually made the roll-out of a deposit return scheme impossible in Scotland—and that was despite the fact that there was good early four-nations engagement on the DRS and an agreement through the common framework process, allowing both Wales and Scotland to introduce their own schemes, which included glass.

However, we are where we are: the power lies with the UK Government. The internal market act is its act, post Brexit; it is not an act that this Parliament voted for. Indeed, it is not an act that the people of Scotland voted for, because we did not even vote for Brexit. However, as I have said, we are where we are with the act.

Briefly, I want to pay tribute to the convener, who on multiple occasions has tried to understand from the Secretary of State for Scotland the reasons for the internal market act exemption that was gifted to the Scottish Government but which has effectively meant that Scotland’s DRS cannot go ahead. He has tried and, unfortunately, failed to do that, and if the convener cannot secure information and understanding from the UK Government about the failure to grant a proper exemption for DRS, I struggle to understand how the Scottish Government itself can get that information. Simply wishing that that were so in this bill fails to realise the power dynamic here and the fact that the IMA places all those powers on the Secretary of State for Scotland.

It is only through better dialogue between the devolved Administrations and the secretary of state that we can get proper agreements on these things, but right now, the picture is very mixed. Indeed, it has not happened at all with the DRS. The reasons for that remain unfathomable, and the committee has been unable to scrutinise the issue in any meaningful way.

I am interested in many of the comments that have been made about climate change and the need for action, particularly with regard to regulations and on a number of issues that have been raised in both this group and the previous one. Can the minister, who will presumably be in charge of the next climate change plan, confirm that that plan will contain specific costed policies with deadlines for introduction that relate to the circular economy and which might also relate to the kind of regulations that we have been discussing in our consideration of the bill? Is this really where we are going to see the commitment to action that I think many members are trying to insert into the bill ahead of schemes being developed, worked up and agreed on with stakeholders?

I thank the minister for giving way. It was useful to hear about the European Union directives and the continued work on that agenda in Europe. Will the minister outline what the Scottish Government’s on-going commitment is to that work and whether she is aware of more work that will be happening in the European Union in the years to come that we could adopt in this country to maintain our alignment and the hugely important European Union standards and values?

I will not press amendment 196. I have listened carefully to the views of members and the minister. Particularly in these straitened times with public finance, we need to make public grant money work a lot harder. We need to see increasing conditionality put on public grants to ensure that the objectives that are set by the Government are actually being delivered. There are so many important objectives around the circular economy. I want to see public money working harder for the public and taxpayers.

I take on board the points about where to draw the line in terms of proportionality—do we apply the requirements on reporting to the smallest of small businesses? There is a question in that regard. However, those organisations and businesses that are very resource intensive will probably already have an approach to the circular economy and resource efficiency and they should be reporting and providing a statement on how they will make further progress.

I am intrigued by the minister’s comments about how we can work with existing grant programmes to take a more focused approach to delivering that objective and I look forward to discussions between stages 2 and 3 on whether that requires a note in the legislation.

On Bob Doris’s amendment, there is interesting interplay between some of the EU reporting requirements, the discussions that are happening at UK level and the need for us and the Scottish Parliament to maintain that dynamic alignment with the European Union. I am not sure what Bob is going to do at this point, but I will certainly reserve my position until I have heard how the discussions go between stages 2 and 3.

Graham Simpson has sparked quite an interesting debate about national apps, the idea that maybe one size does not fit all and live-time reflections on his amendment, and that was useful. Where I sit on that now is that I recognise that, when it comes to waste, the key relationship between households and communities is the relationship with the council, because that is where most people go to get their information and find out how they can recycle and dispose of waste responsibly. That is where they find out what time the bins need to be put out and where they go to source other information.

However, there are some grey areas, and where SEPA—rather than local authorities—steps in on pollution incidents is one of those. Having greater clarity about that would be useful. At the moment, if you go to the national website for SEPA, you will find some guidance on when to report an incident but that perhaps overlaps the responsibility of local authorities. That goes back to the need for a code of practice, which we have mentioned several times this morning. If the code of practice can incorporate some of those communication issues, I am sure that there would be welcome reflections on that from COSLA and its members.

Finally, on Monica Lennon’s amendments, again I feel that more conversation can be had between stages 2 and 3. I acknowledge the points that the minister made about section 17—perhaps the amendments are not needed. Again, I will reserve my position and I look forward to hearing how those conversations progress between stages 2 and 3 but I will not support the amendments today.

Amendment 196, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 197 not moved.

Section 8—Restrictions on the disposal of unsold consumer goods

Will Mr Simpson give way?

I am just wondering whether Mr Simpson feels that the principle should apply to the UK Government as well, especially given that it has the majority of powers in relation to import of materials, which could have an impact on the circularity of the UK economy. I stress that we live in a single economy within the UK.

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?

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.