Apologies, convener. This was going to be my last question anyway. I will try to keep it sharp.

Earlier, there was a reference to the Carnegie UK report about alternative ways of doing things in relation to future generations, parliamentary committees and so on. Do you have any thoughts about what could be done in that regard if we did not have a body with potential investigatory powers and the ability to provide guidance? We have the national performance framework, but, without that focus, how would a future generations commissioner be able to apply pressure and support public sector bodies? How could the elements of the bill involving the definition and the requirement to have regard to wellbeing and sustainable development be implemented?

That is very much appreciated. It has been good to listen to committee colleagues’ questions.

I will kick off, Professor Jones, by asking you about a couple of your earlier answers on the extent to which public bodies have improved their actions in relation to these issues since the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales was established. You referenced modest change and the maturity of public bodies over the past decade. Will you give us some practical examples to evidence what you meant by that? Is it preventative spending? Is it policy direction? Will you give us some examples, just to bring it to life?

That is really useful. The 2015 act has changed the landscape.

I have a question about the fact that all public sector bodies are under pressure but do not have unlimited funding, which makes that collaborative approach important. Have you seen a difference in the decisions made by public sector bodies because of preventative spending or longer-term thinking? Has the act legitimised that kind of approach?

We will not vote against the carbon targets tonight; we will abstain, because we urgently need to see the detail from the Scottish Government, as well as its long-delayed energy strategy, for which we have been waiting for more than two years.

Will the member take an intervention?

It is really striking that there is huge support across the Parliament for strong action to tackle the climate and nature emergency.

I thank the stakeholders who got in touch with us before today’s debate. WWF Scotland commented that the

“Scottish Government’s Indicative Statement falls short of what is needed to inspire confidence in delivery ... Without a credible plan ... Scotland risks overshooting its carbon budgets.”

It argues that the upcoming climate change plan should include

“sector-specific ... plans, costed policy pathways”

and

“alignment with the annual budget process”.

I could not agree more. We need a plan, across the Scottish Government, that goes on every year. As I said earlier, that is not just the job of the cabinet secretary but of the whole Government.

WWF Scotland also quotes the Scottish Fiscal Commission, which estimates that timely action will require about £0.7 billion a year, or £700 million, from 2026 to 2050, and that if we do not get on with the investment that we need, unchecked climate impact could cost Scotland £11 to £45 billion annually by 2050. That is not somewhere that anybody in the chamber wants to go, which is why we have been arguing so strongly for action and for the plan now, so that we save money and avoid negative impacts on our communities and businesses.

As Friends of the Earth Scotland observes, we have only six months left in this session of Parliament, and the Scottish Government has failed to produce its climate change plan and its energy strategy and just transition plan. I was going to intervene on Michael Matheson, because he announced the draft energy strategy and just transition plan in January 2023. In three months’ time, that will be three years ago. We need action now.

It is not about the cabinet secretary getting everybody to agree on everything. That is not the point—it is about the plan. The reason why we will not vote it down tonight is that we do not want to delay it beyond the next election. However, we make the point that what is in front of us tonight is not good enough in relation to accountability, bringing businesses with us, giving certainty, and getting the investment going that is needed now. Some 280,000 houses are currently vulnerable to flooding. With rising sea levels and increasing extreme weather, that number will only go up. We urgently need to act.

Over the next few weeks, we will work constructively in discussion with the cabinet secretary and her team, but we need everyone, right across the Cabinet, all public bodies, and all our councils, to work together. Scottish Labour, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats have all called for more clarity, a plan, and clear action. Setting targets with no idea how to meet them is not good enough. We need to build consensus. It is about making progress.

We need to bring our constituents with us, and all businesses and communities need to see action. We need to have targets that we can all buy into, even if we do not agree with all the details. People need to have trust that their politicians will deliver the action that we all need in relation to jobs, supply chains, improving people’s homes and getting the transport that we need everywhere. It is about having buses where people need them and trains that run on time and do not get delayed because of the climate emissions that are impacting on the railway network. All of that requires us to act together.

We will not stop these targets today. However, by abstaining, we are bringing them to centre stage. We are not getting enough from the Scottish Government. We need faster action. We will work constructively, but we need the plans now, on both energy and the climate change strategy.

This debate is crucial. We all know that we are here because the Scottish Government did not meet its annual climate targets in nine out of 13 years, even though the targets were capable of being met. Without a comprehensive and specified plan, there is no way that we will meet the purported targets on our way to net zero. The United Kingdom Climate Change Committee is clear that the 75 per cent emissions target for 2030—five years away—will not be met until 2036.

To be clear: we support the principle of legally binding carbon targets. However, we urgently need a plan to deliver on them, and we do not have that.

We are in a climate emergency. We are seeing wildfires and flooding not only in southern Europe and east Asia but in Scotland. This week, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency issued water scarcity warnings across key parts of Scotland while, at the same time, during storm Amy, communities were cut off from electricity and suffered flooding. We are going to get more and more extreme weather hitting communities and businesses, so we urgently need action and a plan from the Scottish Government. We need an acceleration in emissions reductions, investment in adaptation to protect communities and businesses, and a focus on the highest emissions, on targeting, on mitigation and on the adaptation of our homes, buildings, transport, land and industry. However, when we discussed that at the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, it was striking that there was no detail about the implementation of the plan, and that is critical. Of course, we will need not only a plan but robust sector-specific strategies.

I will focus mostly on housing, because there is much more that we could do and must do in that area. The UK Committee on Climate Change says that, by 2035, the majority of homes should be heated using low-carbon electrical heat networks. Although we have standards to reduce emissions in new buildings and the requirement for some form of renewables to be used, we urgently need to see more support for existing households to decarbonise in a way that is affordable. I have regularly pushed the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy on the issue of the end of support for home owners to install solar panels before they install a heat pump. The cabinet secretary always says that budgets are tight, but this year the Scottish Government got an additional £5.2 billion from the UK Government.

It is not only the cabinet secretary who has responsibility for doing what needs to be done, because every part of the Scottish Government needs to invest in climate adaptation to support local supply chains, create jobs, reduce people’s bills and cut our emissions.

Last week, when I was at the Labour conference, I attended a raft of meetings focusing on the positive impacts of investment in community solar projects, the work to make people’s homes more energy efficient—which, again, is a win-win—and investment in local communities. We need a retrofit revolution in Scotland now, but we are not seeing it yet.

The missed opportunities in relation to homes and buildings are massive. Every local authority now has a heat network strategy, as requested by the Scottish Government, but the Scottish Government needs to step up and have a plan.

In my region, we have massive opportunities. For example, in the Shawfair development, Midlothian Council’s publicly owned heat network has powered 3,500 new homes with energy from waste. We could have such projects across the region. The Berwick bank offshore wind project will come online soon but, without a joined-up approach, the Government will pay the developers to turn off the turbines when we have too much electricity. Why not link it with other networks now and support our local authorities?

It is good that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport is here. People across the country need public transport and the infrastructure that lets them use their electric vehicles and makes it affordable for freight and logistics businesses to decarbonise.

More needs to be done to enable land use to help reduce emissions, with the right support for our agricultural communities, because climate change and extreme weather create not only new challenges but opportunities to deliver Scottish-produced food and to enable our natural environments, such as peatlands, to make a significant contribution to our goals.

However, we have discussed these issues for years. As we debate the SSI, it is deeply disappointing that we do not have a plan. If we had a plan that we could debate at the same time, we could target the areas where we need more action.

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Given the huge potential of heat pumps, will the Scottish Government consider reintroducing financial support for householders to install solar panels as a first step to installing heat pumps? Our constituents are now cancelling their plans to install heat pumps, which is bad news for our climate, for their homes and for the companies that make heat pumps in Scotland.

Will the minister take an intervention?