First, I apologise for being late. That was not my intention.

As with previous sections, I propose through amendments 100 to 103 that the word “things” be replaced with “goods, products and materials” in order to provide clarity. I hope that the minister will be keen to support those amendments.

On scrutinising section 6 in advance of the debate on this group, I still had a fundamental question, and it remains unanswered. What will the targets look like? When I met the former minister and asked that exact question, I did not get an answer. We are being asked through the bill to provide ministers with powers to set circular economy targets, but we do not have clarity on what those targets will look like or at what level they will be set.

I missed the opening comments by Maurice Golden, but I know that he has been pushing on that issue as well. This morning, I would very much welcome an outline of the minister’s thoughts and an answer to the fundamental question of what the targets will look like, because that is critical to MSPs being satisfied that the right targets will be set, that they will be supported by industry and civic society, that there will be a clear route to achieving them and that there will be clear routes to monitoring the targets and holding the Government to account.

I am under no illusion that all my amendments to section 6 will be agreed to, but I lodged them to test what the targets will look like. I would be happy to work with the Government, other parties and members round the table to develop those ideas further.

Amendment 192 would require ministers to have regard to the waste hierarchy and amendment 193 would require targets to be set in line with achieving the waste hierarchy. To create a circular economy, we need people to see more value in what they put into recycling or straight into their refuse bin. We have to raise awareness of the waste hierarchy and get people to think about it. For example, instead of throwing out a punctured bike tyre, could a person repair it, or is there somewhere locally where they could go and get it repaired? If a pair of trainers that they ordered from a website do not fit but they have worn them a couple of times, what other opportunities are available to sell them or gift them? We also need to rethink and redesign goods and products so that they can be used for multiple purposes. That requires manufacturers to change their designs and users to change their habits.

My strong view is that having targets would place an emphasis on all stages of the waste hierarchy; send a signal to producers, manufacturers and voluntary organisations, who already do a great deal of work in our communities, that the Scottish Government and Parliament are serious about creating a circular economy; and push towards that step change.

Thanks very much. The question is really just to push a bit further. You have talked about the strategy. Would the strategy potentially have elements that would focus on different types of products, to raise issues up the agenda even if they are not in the bill?

Amendment 104, in my name, would make it clear in the bill that the regulations in section 8 would not cover food products.

There are some great initiatives in which unsold food products are given to local charities or organisations for onward distribution. FareShare is an excellent example of such work that is already on-going. Also, there is a financial incentive to sell products before their use-by date, and a number of retailers place discounts on food products to make sure that they are sold. That reduces the volume of products that would be captured under regulations in that sector.

The regulations could also be challenging for the hospitality sector, which already has a financial incentive to ensure that food waste is kept to a minimum in order to increase profit margins. I am aware that restaurants already employ smart ordering and preparation to anticipate demand and ensure that waste is kept to a minimum.

Retailers, in particular, are concerned about the section 8 provisions and feel that measures affecting unsold food waste, in addition to a number of other regulations that will be placed on them over a short period of time, could prove challenging. I hope that my amendment can help to remove those concerns.

Amendment 198 would enable ministers to publish guidance on how the section 8 regulations would work in practice for industry. To support scrutiny of the regulations, the guidance would be published before, or at the same time as, the regulations are published. The guidance would be helpful because it would make clear to businesses the scope of the unsold goods that would be affected. Given that a number of businesses are already trying to repurpose unsold goods and/or divert them away from landfill, that would be helpful. It is also worth saying that there are circumstances, such as when a good is damaged or contaminated, in which it would be unsafe to put it to another use. In crafting amendment 198, I tried to address the committee’s recommendation that guidance should be drafted in consultation with stakeholders.

I hope that that will kick off a debate on section 8.

I move amendment 104.

Absolutely. That is why we have a co-operative-owned renewables project in Edinburgh that works with the council. That is why we set up Midlothian Energy Ltd, which is building a heat network with Vattenfall in Midlothian, in my region. We have had the Aberdeen Heat & Power experience for the best part of 20 years, and we could do that across the country. Pumped hydro is an opportunity in which I know the member is interested. We could have more such community projects—every council in Scotland could have community-owned or co-operative-owned renewables projects.

We need action. I hope that the minister will say today whether the Scottish Government will support my bill. We need concrete actions across Scotland so that we can play our part in the leadership and delivery of tackling climate change. We are full of potential to be a world leader, and we cannot roll back on the actions that we urgently need. I hope that we, as a Parliament, can work together to make that potential a reality, because it is more important than ever.

The last gateway review to be published on the DRS, on readiness for service, which was published in July last year and on which Mr Ewing notably pursued the Government, concluded that the programme’s status was amber/red. That means that

“Successful delivery of the programme is in doubt with major risks or issues apparent in a number of key areas. Urgent action is needed to ensure these are addressed, and establish whether resolution is feasible.”

Given the reported legal action, how confident is the Scottish Government that it would be successful, if it went down the route that Mr Ewing has suggested? Given that many businesses—including small and medium-sized enterprises that provide support services in my Lothian region—lost out and jobs were lost, why has the Government not engaged with businesses on compensation before now?

Brilliant. I shall take an intervention from the member.

Lorna Slater is absolutely right that bad gets worse, but it is more than that. We already have train lines undermined by flooding, roads getting closed and people not being able to afford to heat their houses in a way that will bring carbon emissions down. Is it not those day-to-day things that we really need to get the Scottish Government to ramp up activity on so that we can tackle our climate emergency and improve people’s lives?

I thank the minister for taking my question, which is about energy efficiency in existing homes. We know that the Scottish Government underspent by £133 million the money that had been allocated. This is a huge challenge and I welcome the minister to her new role. The focus on jobs and training in all of our communities will be critical. Will she pick that issue up and work on it?

I think that I am about to be told to wind up by the Deputy Presiding Officer.

I thank Maurice Golden for bringing this key issue to the chamber. I hope that everyone in the chamber will agree on the necessity of urgent action. We are experiencing the impacts of climate change now—it is not a future issue. We are seeing increased extreme weather, flooding, storms and forest fires damaging our infrastructure and affecting people’s homes and communities in Scotland. That is happening across the world, too, most recently with the devastating floods in Brazil and a drought in Ethiopia.

Just last week, a Guardian survey of members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change revealed that 80 per cent of leading climate scientists predict a 2.5°C increase in global temperatures. The problems will get only worse if we do not act now.

We need a Government that will match the ambitious targets that this Parliament set on a cross-party basis with ambitious action. The Climate Change Committee, as Maurice Golden mentioned, highlighted a number of key areas in which the Scottish Government has either no plan or an insufficient plan. It said in its report that we need more robust action on transport, waste, land usage, green jobs, industry and buildings.

Continuity will not cut it. We need to hear from the minister today, which is nearly a month after her Government announced that it would be scrapping the 2030 target, what the Scottish Government will do to severely ramp up action on delivering on climate change. We have been given no details on the proposals that it will introduce, what targets it will scrap and keep, what the status of the climate change plan will be, and how carbon budgets will work and relate to those issues. We are no further forward in getting clarity on those matters.

Labour has a strong history of being ambitious. I remember, in my time as a minister, setting up a ministerial group on sustainable development—with the first renewables targets—and providing free bus travel for older people and people with disabilities. However, I was prompted by the centre for energy ethics at St Andrews to reflect on the passing of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019, when Scottish Labour pushed for more action. We got cross-party agreement for action, but we need to make sure that we deliver on those targets. All of us across the chamber must think that through.

When we were in power, we introduced the UK Sustainable Development Commission, which the Tory-led coalition subsequently closed. We must think about what we can do to ramp up our action. We have plans for GB energy, a nationally owned energy company based in Scotland, to accelerate the just transition that is already under way and to urgently add thousands of new jobs, and, critically, to accelerate community renewables so that all our communities across the country will benefit. We will also nationalise rail to drive sustainable transport and set up a national wealth fund so that we get infrastructure investment.

That joined-up thinking is why I am pursuing my member’s bill on wellbeing and sustainable development. We must ensure that all policy development and implementation will deliver on sustainable development, wellbeing and our climate targets, and, crucially, we must learn from the Welsh experience by having a future generations commissioner.

I am grateful to Labour, Scottish Liberal Democrat and Conservative MSPs who have signed up to support my member’s bill. That has given me the right to introduce the bill, and I am now working on bringing it—