Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have all agreed that one year is a bit too ambitious, and that two years is maybe unrealistic, as the minister has said. Will the minister accept different timescales at stage 3—perhaps three or four years? Surely we must be able to set a timescale so that it does not just drift along. As I said earlier, this cannot just be a piece of legislation that sits on the shelf.

I thank the minister for taking on board amendment 81, which will firm up what the Scottish ministers “must” do, and for providing clarification on the use of the word “appropriate”.

I press amendment 81.

Amendment 81 agreed to.

Maurice Golden said that the target is easy to meet, but it cannot be that easy to meet because the Government is not meeting its targets. What is going wrong, in your opinion, that those targets are not being met?

Does Mr Golden share my thought that those targets are being abandoned at this stage because the Government has failed to meet them for the past seven years?

Amendment 81 is quite simple. It would change the word “may” to “must”. It might be just one word, but it is an important change that should be made to the bill. If we are serious about moving to a circular economy, we must set ourselves targets. The use of the term “may” in setting targets does not really cut it, which is why the Government must take this on board, change “may” to “must” and get a move on.

I understand that amendments 147 and 150, in the name of Bob Doris, go together, and I support them both. One thing that I would like to highlight about amendment 150 is that it states:

“The Scottish Ministers must, as soon as reasonably practicable after laying a copy of the proposed regulations, publicise them in such manner as they consider appropriate.”

I hope that we will hear from Mr Doris what is meant by publicising the regulations as ministers “consider appropriate”. Perhaps that phrase is always in legislation, but I would like to know what is meant by it; we might hear about that from the minister as well.

Another thing to flag in amendment 150 is that the

“representation period must be at least 90 days, of which no fewer than 30 must be days on which the Parliament is not dissolved or in recess.”

If it is the worst-case scenario of just 30 days, I want to get an idea of whether that would be enough and whether that period is standard in legislation. I hope to hear about that from Mr Doris and the minister.

I move amendment 81.

We should review progress on our targets and whether we are going to meet them. After making an assessment of the targets and seeing where we are heading, the Government may think that we have to make some changes—not to the targets but to some of the things that we are doing to ensure that we are on track to make progress on the circular economy that we are all hoping for and moving towards. If we do not measure the targets and do not know what is happening, it will be difficult to meet those targets.

Maurice Golden’s amendment 148 is about whether the targets are achievable. I think that it is only right that we look at that. Some of the climate change emissions targets have not been achievable for quite a while, which has been swept under the carpet. We are looking at whether the circular economy targets are actually achievable.

I am supportive of amendment 149 and I support amendment 12, in the name of Graham Simpson—he will talk to the amendment himself. It is often the case that the Government wants to set fines for other bodies, so if the Government is not meeting its targets, it should get fined. That money should go to local authorities and the third sector to be fed back into the system to try to ensure that we reach the targets that are set. If there are no fines for the Government, that may not move forward.

That would be up to the Government when it sets its targets. Just as it wants to fine other organisations, there should be a financial penalty for the Scottish Government. The money should be reinvested, which is key, into the circular economy through the third sector and local authorities.

I will speak to some of the other amendments in the group. Amendment 13 is just a review of targets. As we have heard, the Government has set emissions reductions targets before and those have not been met for eight out of the past 12 years. There should be a review of that, as targets are constantly being missed.

Amendment 14 links to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. Obviously, the legislation might change in the future, but that seems to be a sensible approach.

Amendment 152, in the name of Maurice Golden, is also supportive of the view that there is no point in the Government having a plan if the people who would have to deliver a huge chunk of the work do not have plans in place. It would ensure that plans are put in place.

I move amendment 82.

Yes—I will do exactly the same. I remind members that my entry in the register of members’ interests shows that I was a councillor at the beginning of the current parliamentary session.

Will the minister take an intervention?

If we were in a good place where both Governments were working together, I would agree that it was not required. However, from what we have learned over the past couple of years, we know that it is required, because things have not been working according to the frameworks. I imagine that both Governments would blame each other, and we would not find ourselves in a good position.

It would be good if the amendment was not required but, from our experience over the past couple of years, I think that it is required. I will leave it there.