I thank the minister for that answer; that is useful timetabling. Given this morning’s announcement by Petroineos that 400 workers will lose their jobs in Grangemouth when it shuts its oil refinery, what support will those workers—with their skills, knowledge and experience—be given to ensure that we see a real just transition?

I very much agree that we need that infrastructure investment. Would the member agree that we also need investment in solar, whether it is heat or power, and in wave and hydro? There are other opportunities, in addition to renewable wind, that we should be seizing on now.

I am saying not that we have not had investment but that, whenever I meet people in the industry, whether from oil and gas or renewables, supply chains are the number 1 issue that they all mention, together with getting more support for their workers. We have fantastic natural resources and a wealth of skills, but we need to turn that into reality.

The Great British energy company will be critical. Last week, a raft of new offshore wind farms were approved across the UK. We need to make sure that such investment comes to Scotland. Labour’s national wealth fund is an ideal vehicle for investment in Scotland’s ports. We have talked about that before, but we need to get on with it. We could have a green supply chain infrastructure across the whole of Scotland, which would give us thousands of new jobs.

People want to do that. We know from talking to workers in oil and gas that they have transferable skills that can still work in oil and gas but can also be brought into the renewables sector—especially the offshore sector. Oil and gas companies, which will be with us for decades, are now also investing in renewables. That joined-up approach is happening up in the north-east, but we need more of it, and it needs a just transition.

We need action on the skills passport, because we could get going now. The urgency is critical. We have already heard about other companies pulling out and about the Grangemouth announcement.

As a former planner, I welcome the reforms to planning consenting, but there is not enough detail and not enough about a timeline. The problem is that we should have been doing that years ago. Planners have left local authorities, which have faced cuts, and we need more new planners to deliver a speedier effective planning process that works for our communities and the renewables sector.

We need more information on delivery. Warm words are not enough. We have been critiqued by the Just Transition Commission, the Just Transition Partnership and work by the Scottish Trades Union Congress. Research is available that says that more needs to be done. The Transition Economics report was clear: we need a massive ramp-up in Scottish supply chains, so we need more work to be done.

We have had ambitious targets, which were supported across party, but we have not seen the necessary ambition from Government. We have lost vital skills, there has been lots of outsourcing of our industry and supply chains, and we have lost money that could have been raised and spent on more ambitious action.

We need a joined-up approach. It is not just about producing energy; it is also about where we use it, how we use it, whether we use it more effectively, and whether we use all the new innovations that are coming in transport, building, land, ports and the energy system.

We need to do better than the green industrial strategy. However, we will be constructive and we will work with the Scottish Government, because the alternative is more failure, more missed climate targets and more workers who have skills and experience losing their jobs. Our communities, our workers, our businesses and our planet cannot afford that.

I move amendment S6M-14431.3, to leave out from first “recognises” to end and insert:

“believes that one of the Scottish National Party’s biggest political failures is its failure to turn Scotland’s enormous renewable energy resources into jobs, wealth and social good for communities across Scotland.”

Given the sustained failure by the Scottish Government to meet our climate targets, would demonstrating how we could reduce our homes, buildings, transport and land emissions not be a fundamental contribution for us to make if we are to have credibility at COP29?

I thank colleagues for supporting my motion and enabling the debate, and I welcome Alasdair Allan to his ministerial role.

This month, the United Nations will host a summit of the future, which is being described as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reinvigorate global action. People from around the world will gather together to wrestle with one of the most important questions of our time: what can we do now to build a planet that survives and thrives for the generations that follow us? That is an essential question that every parliamentarian should ask themselves, and it must reframe how we see the way we legislate, the actions that we take and the priorities that we pursue.

As part of the summit, attendees will vote on the Declaration on Future Generations. The declaration’s message is clear: we have a responsibility for future generations. The declaration also stresses the importance of the UN’s sustainable development goals. By prioritising those, we can do the vital work that is needed to protect future generations. The goals call on all nations to work for education, peace, health and wellbeing, to preserve nature, eradicate poverty and establish equality for all. However, we have to work together and use the powers and leadership of our Parliament to deliver the action to make those goals a reality.

Lack of action will have an intergenerational multiplier effect. Mistakes made now will be paid for long after we are gone, but positive decisions that we make today could have a cumulative effect on wellbeing long into the future. We have an opportunity as a Parliament to future proof the foundations of our country and to build wellbeing and sustainability into all our policy and planning. Our every action can be taken with a big picture in mind, and we could leave a remarkable legacy behind.

Scotland will not be alone in that. Increasingly, the whole world is realising the need for global action that plans for a bright and sustainable future. I have seen it working. The inspiring discussions that we had in Vilnius last year at the congress on the future of the world gave me the chance to hear at first hand about the action that is being taken by parliamentarians across the world. We now know that several countries are acting with long-term intergenerational goals in mind. Kenya is developing an intergenerational fairness assessment tool, and we are seeing action in Mexico, Costa Rica and New Zealand. Closer to home, we are seeing action in other European Parliaments. For example, just last year, the Parliament of the Balearic Islands approved a law for the wellbeing of the present and future generations, and, at a European Union level, Ursula von der Leyen intends to appoint a commissioner with responsibilities for intergenerational fairness.

The world increasingly recognises that we have the power to shape the world for the better and to do it for centuries to come, but in Scotland we are not quite there yet, and we are currently missing the opportunity presented to us.

Fantastic work is being done by a range of groups, such as the Wellbeing Economy Alliance Scotland, Scotland’s International Development Alliance and Carnegie UK, and we have a meeting of our cross-party group on wellbeing tomorrow morning. However, an important report that was produced by Carnegie UK highlighted that Scotland is falling behind in integrating wellbeing frameworks. It stated:

“we could not locate a single national policy in Scotland that the NPF has significantly impacted.”

Worse, it also stated:

“Scotland now cuts a diminished figure on an international stage of wellbeing-focussed governments it helped establish.”

The one glimmer of hope that was highlighted in the Carnegie paper was the Scottish Government’s commitment to a wellbeing and sustainability bill that would enshrine in law the requirement to consider those factors across every area of legislation. However, disappointingly, when the programme for government was announced yesterday, the bill was conspicuously absent. That is bad news for future generations and flies in the face of a global movement towards sustainable development. If action is not taken, Scotland will continue to fall behind in legislation that builds a sustainable future.

Colleagues may be aware that I have a solution. My proposed member’s bill on wellbeing and sustainable development has established cross-party support and is in the stages of being drafted. More than 150 organisations pushed hard before the 2021 elections for greater action in this area. The time for action is now. We can embed the priorities of wellbeing and sustainability in everything that we do as a Parliament, and my bill would ensure that that happens.

I know that the Scottish Government has been working on the issue. It is a vital and hugely popular idea. I hope that the Scottish Government will whole-heartedly support my bill because too often we see short-term decisions. For example, using the ScotWind income to plug a gap in this year’s finances is exactly the kind of action that jeopardises future generations.

Scotland desperately needs a sustainable development framework that allows us to tackle deep-rooted problems, including fuel poverty, poor health and lack of economic opportunity. We urgently need joined-up action to tackle our climate and nature emergencies.

Experience in Wales shows that legislation, with a commissioner focused on delivery, can be transformative, giving leadership, security and guidance.

The need for guidance and constructive collaborative work right across the public sector has become clear from feedback on and analysis of the commissioner’s work. Does Mr Ruskell agree that we are not getting that, but that we need it urgently?

I go back to my point about the experience in Wales, where the legislation was established in 2016. The commissioner who was established there has not just given leadership but has delivered savings and has enabled cross-government work. That is critical, and we urgently need that in Scotland. It is not just about having a commissioner for the sake of the name; it is about transforming decisions, priorities and funding now, because that will benefit not just future generations but our constituents and our communities now. Let us get on with it.

There is a global opportunity here, colleagues, one that the UN’s Declaration on Future Generations recognises. It is an opportunity to change the future for good. However, I go back to my earlier point. If we delay now and pursue sticking-plaster politics instead of robust action that works for a brighter, happier future, tomorrow’s generations will be the ones who pick up the bill. That is not fair and it is not right.

We have a duty to those who will follow us and, as the United Nations meets to declare its commitment for future generations, let us play our part and deliver the transformation that our world urgently needs.

The point about short-term versus long-term decisions is important, but the experience of the Welsh commissioner—we are now on to the second commissioner—shows that scrutiny and hard work, and not just speeches in Parliament, are critical. We do not have that approach at the moment.

The point is that every time the UK CCC has commented on the climate targets, it has come up with practical solutions that have not been followed. It is not just about carbon capture; it is also about the work at Grangemouth. There were a raft of options that could have been taken but have not been taken. That is my frustration. From 2009, a lot more could have been done.

A lot of the ideas that Scottish Labour would support are policies that would be practical and could be done, and which the SNP talks about but has not delivered. Reducing car kilometres, decarbonising domestic heating and restoring biodiversity through sustainable land use are pragmatic things that can be done, as is, crucially, the transition to renewable energy. When I set targets on that during the first session of this Parliament, they were seen as radical, but we have come far along the track since then. There is so much more that we need to do. I honestly thought that today we were going to hear more about what was going to happen in terms of action and delivery.

The most recent UK Climate Change Committee report criticised that lack of action. It is not enough just to claim that we will reduce car kilometres by 20 per cent. How will we do it? During the cross-party group on sustainable transport’s recent poverty inquiry, the message came through loud and clear that we need affordable, reliable and accessible rail and bus services for people who are able to use them, in rural areas in particular but right across the country. People do not have the opportunity to use their bus passes, as that is simply not possible if there are no routes. We need more safe active travel routes. Simply exploring ideas such as an integrated transport ticketing system—an idea from 2012—will not cut it.

Right across every sector, we can see the same story. I mentioned decarbonising heat, which is vital. The minister’s earlier answer to me on solar fundamentally misunderstood that the transition that people want to make needs to be supported. For example, the SNP Government failed to deliver the £133 million that it had budgeted for to retrofit people’s homes and which would have transformed fuel poverty.

At that meeting, will the cabinet secretary be able to promise to add to Creative Scotland’s budget any of the additional £100 million that was promised by the First Minister, given the arts industry’s fears that the funding environment is extremely precarious, which could lead to devastating decisions for arts groups unless there is enough money when Creative Scotland makes its funding decisions in October?