It is about turbines, cables and platforms being made here in Scotland, so that people are trained here and communities benefit. We need to plan ahead and work together across our Governments, supporting high-quality jobs, securing our energy future and making sure that, in the next five years, we turn ambition into delivery so that the words “just transition” mean something real for workers and our communities.

Does Kevin Stewart have any idea when the Scottish Government’s energy and just transition plan will appear? We have been waiting for it for more than two and a half years.

I welcome the round table and the focus on preventing wildfires as the climate emergency is increasing the vulnerability of our land. It is good to hear that funding will be increasing, given the real-terms cut of £56 million in recent years.

Will the minister acknowledge that we need to look at both urban and rural challenges, as our fire services are under huge pressure dealing with wildfires, storms and flooding? Will he agree to look at investment across the country so that we do not lose services, as we would with the current proposal to close Marionville fire station, which is minutes away from Arthur’s Seat?

That is the point, and that is what comes through in the report. We need to work with the trade unions now because, as change accelerates, they need to be at the table to design the just transition, safeguarding the jobs that we have already but also thinking about standards going forward.

One of the really important recommendations in the report is on the need to ensure that supply chains are enhanced and the level of UK manufacturing content in renewables is increased. The report identified that projects to raise the level of UK content in renewables—aspiring to 40 per cent, for instance—would themselves generate thousands of additional jobs. We might think that we produce all of that content here, but we do not.

To realise that opportunity, we need strong signals and investment, so that we get manufacturing plants to open here—I note that the Sumitomo one is being established. We also need more supply chain confidence and investment in local communities. I agree with everyone that the next five years are crucial, and the UK Government’s recent announcements reflect that. The national clean energy jobs plan forecasts hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next five years, but it also explicitly sets out how to support workers in the fossil fuel sector into jobs in clean energy as well as how industry can collaborate with trade unions and education providers.

We can look at how our existing offshore plants could be more energy efficient. For example, offshore wind can reduce the carbon emissions of existing oil and gas. We need that as well as things such as shipping investment to make sure that we have the manufacturing that will support activity in the North Sea.

The build it in Britain ambition is about backing manufacturing and home-grown supply chains and, in particular, supporting coastal and industrial communities. That ambition is critical, because it shows that the UK Government understands that just transition means new jobs and new investment. It is not just about decarbonising our economy; it is about building things in. Grangemouth is a key test case for us. We have lost the refinery, so we need to see more investment.

Historically, there has been a lack of industrial planning from the Tory Government and previously from the SNP. In just the past year and a half, we have seen Labour supporting the Grangemouth area, with its role in the £100 million growth deal, project willow, and the investment of additional money from the national wealth fund. We need to secure a future for people who are living in those communities, so that there is a fair transition. That means investment to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds, from not only the Government but the private sector.

It was about the range of public bodies and the urgency of implementing sustainable development and taking a more joined-up approach to policy coherence. The Christie commission was nearly 15 years ago, and we did not take that forward. It is thinking about that policy coherence and the potential of the proposed commissioner to support the range of organisations that do not have sustainable development or wellbeing on their agendas.

Ellie, do you have any thoughts?

On the issue of alternative options, the Carnegie UK report contained a range of different ideas, such as having a conveners forum in the Parliament to ask MSPs to do this work.

I spoke with representatives of Audit Scotland, and it would need resource, because it does not have the capacity at the moment. Other suggestions involve a Government-appointed advisory council and an independent round table. Do the witnesses have any thoughts about those alternatives and about the benefits and disbenefits of having a commissioner as a different way of doing things?

It seems not. I could probably ask questions all day, but that might not be tactically smart.

Would a memorandum of understanding offer an appropriate way to approach that, considering the role of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and the human rights angle? I have discussed that issue with Audit Scotland, and it does not have the capacity. What about that idea of having a memorandum of understanding, so that you are clear about whose priorities are what and so that you do not overlap?

Emma?

Duncan, do you want to come in?