Chamber and committees

It is a long time since I led a members’ business debate from the back benches, and so I am very pleased to have the opportunity to do so today.

COP30—the 30th UN climate change conference of the parties—will kick off in Brazil in just a few days’ time. As someone who attended five COP summits in my time as First Minister, I know how tense and high stakes they can be. Progress is never guaranteed and, more often than not, the talks go right to the wire.

However, in 2021, coming out of COP26 in Glasgow, there was cautious optimism that the world, albeit belatedly, and very tentatively, might be on the right track. There was consensus about the existential importance of taking action to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Although delivery on finance commitments continued to fall woefully short, there was a recognition that much more needed to be done. And, after a 30-year stalemate, we suddenly had momentum on the crucial issue of funding for loss and damage—to which, as it is the focus of my motion, I will return shortly.

Four years on, though, it feels very hard to stay optimistic. Climate action seems to have fallen prey—in some parts of the world, anyway—to the culture wars. Climate change denial has even raised its head again, and we are witnessing a rearguard action from the global fossil fuel industry, which, in my opinion, threatens the just transition to clean, renewable sources of energy. As a result, it now seems all but inevitable that global warming will exceed 1.5°C over the next few years. Although I hope that that will be only a temporary overshoot, the consequences will be devastating. Momentum on finance is also at risk of stalling.

Against that backdrop, it is impossible to overstate the importance of COP30. Scotland, of course, does not sit around the COP negotiating table. However, make no mistake that, because of the leadership that we have shown on climate action generally, but especially on loss and damage, our voice is respected and listened to. I pay tribute to the First Minister for grasping that baton of leadership so firmly, as demonstrated on his recent trip to Zambia and Malawi. Nevertheless, I urge the Scottish Government to raise its voice even more loudly and to continue to match its moral leadership with tangible policy.

On emissions, we must urge action that will get the world back on the 1.5°C track as quickly as possible. Of course, we must lead by example. That means a strong climate change plan, which I know that the cabinet secretary will publish shortly. I also encourage active discussion with the United Kingdom Government on policies such as a levy on private jet flights, which the First Minister has previously expressed interest in. In my view, there should also be a formalisation of the presumption against new oil and gas development. That is not about turning off oil and gas taps immediately, but recognising that new fossil fuel developments are not in the interests of either the climate or the North Sea workforce, which urgently needs all available skills, capital and focus to be on the renewables transition.

Let me turn now to funding for loss and damage. Loss and damage is the term used to describe the catastrophic impacts of climate change that can no longer be avoided through cutting emissions or building resilience—known, respectively, as mitigation and adaptation. Those impacts do not lie in some dystopian future; they are the present reality for the world’s most climate-vulnerable nations. They include hard economic losses such as infrastructure destroyed by floods or crops lost to drought. However, they also come in non-economic forms, such as the loss of cultural heritage or indigenous ways of life.

The total cost of loss and damage is estimated to be more than $500 billion since 2020 alone, and it is anticipated that, by 2030, the annual cost will rise to $400 billion. Of course, the countries bearing the lion’s share of those costs are those that have done the least to cause climate change. It is some of the poorest people on the planet who are now paying the price of the emissions that made industrialised countries like ours very rich. Therefore—and I make no apology for saying this—funding to help pay for loss and damage is not charity, but reparation. It is a moral obligation that the global north owes to the global south.

Since 1991, when a proposal for a loss and damage fund was first mooted, developed countries have stonewalled. That started to change in Glasgow. At COP26, the Scottish Government became the first Government in the world to pledge hard cash to loss and damage. We were inspired by the work of organisations such as the Loss and Damage Collaboration. Although our pledge then of £2 million was small in a global context, our leadership forced the momentum that led to the establishment of the international fund for responding to loss and damage at COP27 in Egypt.

Our funding is already making a tangible difference. Scotland should be proud of that global leadership, but we need to keep it up. More than that, in fact, we need to intensify it, because, without firm action now, progress will stall. The international fund is due to start disbursing money soon, but it is woefully underresourced. There is a real fear that it will be bureaucratic and inefficient and, of most concern, that it will operate in a way that increases the indebtedness of global south countries. This, then, is a time to raise our voice again for the principle of loss and damage and for the quantum of funding.

Of course, here, we must put our money where our mouth is by protecting our own climate justice fund and the way in which funding is made available. On the latter point—the how—we should champion our own approach. The projects that are being funded by the Scottish Government are seen by international partners as prototypes for the world. It is the principles that underpin those projects that we must urge the international fund to follow.

First, funding must be in the form of grants, not loans. It would be unconscionable for loss and damage funding to add to already unsustainable debt burdens. Secondly, funding must not come tied up in strings. Communities must be empowered to devise their own solutions to the crisis. Thirdly, funding must cover non-economic as well as economic loss and damage. Loss of heritage, culture and traditional ways of life are no less devastating than loss of infrastructure.

The world is at a critical juncture on both climate action and climate justice, and there are many who would like to see us go backwards. It is therefore crucial that Governments such as ours continue to be strong, principled, practical and resolute in pushing progress forward. I know that the cabinet secretary will be stalking the corridors at COP30, using her voice, her experience and the hard-won credibility of the Scottish Government to help to get the world back on the right track. I wish her well.

Effectively tackling climate change and ensuring climate justice are vital imperatives that matter for the peace, security and prosperity of all of us.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted no.

Will Pauline McNeill take an intervention?

I apologise, Presiding Officer, for omitting to put my card in, and I thank Pauline McNeill for taking the intervention. Does she acknowledge that it is the overwhelming view of survivors of sexual offences that a stand-alone specialist court would help to reduce the compounding trauma that they are often subjected to in criminal proceedings under the current system? As she progresses her argument, will she address the question of how her amendments would effect the culture change that many people think is essential and how her amendments would address the delays that often bedevil the current system? In the amendments that she has lodged, neither of those points is clear to me.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no.

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

This chamber feels far too quiet without Christina’s infectious laugh. It is impossible, in three minutes, to encapsulate the remarkable human being that she was, but let me share these fundamental truths about a woman I was privileged to call my friend.

First, she was a truly exceptional politician, with abilities that are all too rare in places like this. The connection that she made with people came from her heart—a heart that she always wore proudly on her sleeve, and which burned with a passion for social justice and equality.

When I made Christina a minister, I knew that she would do a good job, but I did not anticipate the strength of the impact that she made. As First Minister, whenever I encountered someone who worked in her policy field, they would invariably tell me that they loved her. No disrespect to my other ministers, but that was not normal.

Secondly, she was the beating heart of her family. Forgive me, Presiding Officer, if I address them directly.

Keith, you were her soul mate. I do not think you will ever know how much happiness you brought her. I know that she made you deeply happy, too.

Lewis and Jack, she was so very, very proud of you. Rare was the conversation with your mum that did not involve accounts of what one or both of you were up to. A little-known fact is that Jack and I share a birthday, which meant that Christina was always one of the first people I would hear from on my birthday every year. I will so miss those texts. However, from now on, Jack, whether you like it or not, in my little mark of remembrance, I am going to be the first person you hear from on your birthday every single year.

Finally, Christina McKelvie was an absolutely incredible friend. Over the past couple of years, in particular, when she must so often have had the weight of the world on her own shoulders, she was always concerned to know how I was. On St Andrew’s day last year, we were both at Janey Godley’s funeral. I could tell that day that Christina was not feeling well, so I forced her to let me drive her home. I will gloss over her assessment of my driving, but I am deeply grateful to have had that time with Christina. It was probably the most profound conversation that we ever had. She opened up about her fears of what lay ahead and for the loved ones she knew she would leave behind far too soon. We reflected together on how short life is and how important it is to live every single day of it to the full and, even in the darkest of times, to find reasons to laugh. It is that, ultimately—her laugh and her unfailing ability, no matter what, to lift my spirits—that I will remember most about the beautiful, funny, wise woman that was Christina McKelvie.

Christina, I loved you. We all loved you. And I am going to miss you so very much. [Applause.]

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Likewise—I could not get the app to connect; I would have voted yes.

I commend the minister on the continued commitment to the Promise and the significant progress that has been made. However, the oversight board is clear that delivery by 2030 needs increased pace and renewed purpose, so I would like to press her on that point. What in her statement will increase the pace of delivery, rather than simply continue it at a pace that we all agree is not sufficient at this stage?