Chamber and committees

As I look at this from the perspective that I have now, some of the questions that the committee is posing are reasonable. That does not mean that there is anything sinister there. As a Government, we were desperately trying to find a path to meet a 2025 target. Obviously, the prospect and chances of doing that were diminishing with every month and year that passed, but we had not given up on doing so.

The 2014 date is significant because of the Office for National Statistics issue with the classification of NPD. That was not the point at which we had to consider a private finance option, as that was always a requirement; it was the point at which we had to effectively scrap the one that would have been the option and try to find another one, which took considerable work and time.

Then there was the period around 2018. As I think I said in response to the convener, if I look at the issue now, in hindsight, that is a point at which it is reasonable to at least pose the question about whether we should have been airing a bit more of this publicly. If I remember correctly, the original estimate for construction was about six years. By 2018, you are getting to the point at which, even if you have the finance procurement route settled, you are starting to get tight for a 2025 target.

If I was to go back to relive that period, I do not think that I have read anything that would make me think that there is something that we could have done to change things and to hit that target, but I would say that we should perhaps have been airing a lot more of the difficulties that we were in or the challenges that we were facing at that point a bit more openly. However, that is me applying hindsight.

I think that it is for the reasons that I have spoken about. Again, I say this with hindsight—that is one of the features of exercises such as this; we look at all these things from a different perspective. The 2025 target was always a massive mountain to climb, and to get to the summit by 2025 was going to require everything to go our way.

We then had certain things that did not go our way, such as the 2014 ONS issue, and austerity—I am not making a party-political point there; austerity put huge pressure on budgets. There was also Covid, which I have just spoken about. Those things were over and above the inherent complexities of the project around design, route selection, public consultation and environmental assessment—the project runs through a national park, and there are sites of historical significance. When we add on some unforeseen complexities, that is the reason why we are sitting here.

That does not make it easy or acceptable from the perspective of the Highlands, but nor does it equate to a situation in which the Government simply did not bother trying to progress the A9 project. We had significant commitment and drive behind it, but we encountered very significant challenges along the way.

This is where I will be candid with the committee. I have looked again—as you would expect me to do in advance of being here—at all the papers that I would have seen, and some that I did not, which I would not, as First Minister, routinely have seen at the time.

Before I say what I am about to say, I think that it is important not to sit here and say that there is nothing that we could have done to speed it up. It is important that there are processes to enable us to look back and really ask those hard questions. There will undoubtedly be points at which different decisions might have speeded things up to some extent.

Do I think that there is anything, in the context that we were, and that we came to be, dealing with, that we could have done that would have meant that the 2025 target turned out to be deliverable? My honest answer is no, I do not, because of the nature of the challenges with which we were confronted.

If I was First Minister then, is there something that I think that I could have done to meet that target? I genuinely do not. If I was First Minister now, which is not a prospect that I really like to contemplate, I would, I think, be confident—with all the caveats that one always has to add around major infrastructure projects—in the programme and the timeline that the Government has now set out.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not connect, but I would have voted yes.

Does the First Minister agree that, if we are to keep the Promise, the significant progress that has already been made needs to continue and now intensify? In particular, does he agree that the whole family wellbeing fund is absolutely essential to providing the funding to transform services so that families are better supported and fewer young people need to enter care in the first place? To that end, will he give a commitment that the fund will be delivered in full and that it will be fully invested in to improve the lives of the young people—present and future—to whom the Promise has been made?

I thank Maggie Chapman for securing this important debate. This is a topic that goes to the very heart of the moral obligation—I use that term deliberately—that developed countries owe to those in the global south. The devastating effects of climate change are now impossible for any politician, bar the mendacious, to deny or ignore. Here in Scotland, as Maggie Chapman has just reflected on, storm Babet has just delivered a tragic reminder that those impacts are now being felt everywhere. My thoughts, too, are with those who have been affected.

Although the impacts are global, they fall most acutely, and massively disproportionately, on countries that have done the least to cause climate change—countries that are already poorer and less equipped to deal with the consequences of the emissions that have fuelled the prosperity of those of us in the developed world. For example, the carbon emissions of countries in east Africa are negligible in a global context, and yet human-induced climate change has contributed to drought and famine there—a hunger crisis that, earlier this year, was estimated to be claiming two lives every single minute.

Finance provided by rich countries to help the poorest deal with climate change is woefully inadequate. Shamefully, the much-lauded $100 million-per-year commitment, first made 14 years ago, has still not been delivered in full. As well as being inadequate, such finance is also far too limited in scope. Current funding covers mitigation action to reduce emissions and adaptation action to build resilience through, for example, flood defences.

Both of those matter—of course they do—and they are hugely important. However, not covered at all at this stage is the loss and damage being wrought by the impacts of climate change that are of a type and scale that can no longer be mitigated or adapted to. Such impacts are already causing loss of life, loss of livelihoods and enforced changes to how and where people live, and they are doing so on a truly massive scale.

Countries and individuals across the global south have been campaigning for explicit recognition of and recompense for loss and damage for 30 years, yet it was only at COP26 in Glasgow that the first glimmer of a breakthrough was made. I am very proud that Scotland played its part and became the first developed country in the world to pledge funding for loss and damage. Momentum continued last year at COP27 in Egypt, with an agreement to set up a dedicated fund and the establishment of a transitional committee to agree the detail. Again, Scotland was at the forefront of efforts to make that progress.

However, it will be at COP28 in Dubai, in just a few weeks’ time, that we will know whether those promises are to be honoured—indeed, whether it is any longer possible to expect global south countries to keep faith with the multilateral process at all. I hope for the best, but already fear the worst. By all accounts, progress in the transitional committee is nowhere near where it should be.

In the short time that I have today, I simply want to add my voice to those demanding true climate justice. COP28 must ensure that the loss and damage fund becomes operational without delay. It must be open to all developing countries. The finance that it offers must be additional to that already available for mitigation and adaptation. It must be in the form of grants, not loans. To deepen the indebtedness of developing countries would not address injustice—it would compound it. Such finance must cover the full range of the loss and damage that are being suffered. That means not just the impacts of sudden events such as floods and storms, but those of slow-onset climatic changes, and not just the impacts of economic loss, such as damage to infrastructure, but those of non-economic loss of life, culture and heritage.

My final call falls closer to home. I understand—probably more than most members in the chamber—the financial pressures confronting Government. However, I ask the Scottish Government to ensure that our overall climate justice fund commitment for this Parliament, which increased during COP26, is delivered in full and that, as a bare minimum—I stress that—we honour in full the world-leading commitments that have been made to loss and damage funding. This is a matter of basic justice. It is the obligation that we owe to those in the global south who pay the price of our prosperity. I hope that Scotland will continue to lead the way.

I believe that that is the case right now, but I do not believe that that is inevitably what has to be. That brings me exactly to the point that I wanted to make.

The Promise is, and always will be, a mission that is close to my heart. Relevant to the point that the member raises is that, as in so many areas, there is a need to make up for time lost to the pandemic, which is why I welcome and applaud the focus that a new Cabinet sub-committee will bring.

The Promise is about improving the lives of young people in care, but we must remember that it is also about something else—supporting families better so that fewer young people need to go into care in the first place. To that end, I look forward to hearing about progress in financing and implementing the critically important whole family wellbeing fund.

I recognise that. It is why progress needs to be accelerated, which is why I mentioned that point.

Another aspect of the programme for government that merits close attention is action to accelerate the green transition, which is essential to safeguarding the planet and building a fairer society. It is also the most important opportunity that we have to achieve sustainable economic growth. I welcome plans to take forward recommendations from the First Minster’s investor panel, which was established towards the end of my time in office.

Moving away from fossil fuels, which we must do, does not mean turning off the North Sea taps overnight—as some mischaracterise it—but turning on new taps. The First Minister is right to criticise the UK Government’s approach. That approach will make a marginal difference to the lifespan of the North Sea, but it comes at a heavy cost to the environment and to the focus that we need on building renewables capacity as quickly as possible. Lastly on the climate, I look forward to seeing Scotland’s world-leading commitments on financing for the loss and damage that the global south has suffered taken forward fully.

I will conclude with a few words not so much on what we do in the Parliament as on how we do it. Before that, I accept my share of responsibility for the state of our political discourse. If anything, though, that makes me more determined to play a part in trying to change it. Polarisation in politics is much maligned. It is the paralysis of action that it can result in that should worry us most. As we embark on a new parliamentary term, perhaps we need to have some principles in mind to guide us.

The first principle is a collective recognition that the challenges that we face require tough decisions, which are by definition hard and often unpopular and will always meet resistance from those who benefit from the status quo. That is not an argument for ignoring those voices, but it is important that we make sure that they do not become an automatic veto on the change that is necessary.

The second point is an acceptance that we cannot just wish for the ends of our policy objectives; we must also have the means to deliver. That means that we need mature debate on how we pay for our policy priorities and on the powers that the Parliament has and needs.

I want the Parliament to be independent and believe that it soon will be. I do not think that I am creating news with that statement. However, that will never stop me from arguing for incremental change along the way. Likewise, those who oppose independence should not close their minds to new powers that allow us to better tackle the big challenges that we face here and now.

Finally, disagreement and robust debate are not just the essence of democracy; they are part of what makes us human. However, the dynamic that that creates is not fixed—

—it is up to us to choose. Will we choose acrimony and stalemate, or will we use the creative tension to drive improvement for all? I hope that, in this term, we will see more of the latter than the former, and I look forward to playing my part in it.

This is my first speech here solely as the MSP for Glasgow Southside. It is also the first programme for government in 17 years that I have not been involved in as either First Minister or Deputy First Minister. To say that my perspective on politics has altered would be something of an understatement. From here, certain things look different—perhaps a bit clearer, in fact—than from in the trenches of the political front line. I will perhaps return to that later.

First, though, I turn straight to yesterday’s programme for government. I enthusiastically commend it. I cannot claim to be entirely objective, but it strikes a good—the right—balance between building on progress and breaking new ground. Much has been said about the importance of the economy—and rightly so. There can be no strong society without a strong, sustainable economy. However, the opposite, although just as true, has traditionally had less attention. It has been right to address that, and I commend the First Minister for keeping very firmly in vision the mission for a fairer society where everyone can contribute to and benefit from the fruits of the economy.

The economy will never flourish when systemic barriers prevent people from accessing the labour market—especially when lack of population growth is one of the most significant challenges that we face—or when poverty robs too many people of opportunity and fulfilment.

I am extremely proud of the doubling of early years education and childcare provision, which is a vitally important infrastructure project as well as a social initiative. I am also proud of the establishment of the Scottish child payment. Those measures deliver immediate benefits—especially to the 90,000 children who are being lifted out of poverty right now—but the real value will be in the long term. In that vein, I very much welcome plans to further expand childcare. The pilot that was announced yesterday is a sensible approach, and I hope very much that it will lead to mainstreamed provision as soon as possible.

I take the opportunity to mention the Promise to our care-experienced young people—a mission that is, and always will be, close to my heart.