Is that something of which you are aware? At the moment, we pay £250 million to turn off the turbines every year in Scotland due to constraints, yet data centres could be using that energy in an efficient way.

I think that a series of data centres is planned in Scotland; it is not just one. It is a big opportunity, so there should be joined-up thinking around that.

I congratulate Nicola Sturgeon for securing this debate.

Loss and damage is destruction that goes beyond what people can adapt to: when floods wash away homes, when crops fail year after year and when rising seas swallow villages. It is what happens when climate change pushes communities past the point of recovery.

As a member of the cross-party group on Malawi, I have heard directly from communities that have suffered losses. In Malawi, more than 80 per cent of people live in rural areas and rely on farming to survive, but storms and droughts have devastated crops, impacting on people’s incomes and pushing families deeper into poverty.

In Pakistan, although communities are still recovering from the massive floods that they suffered in 2022, they have had severe floods every year since. Their Government had to borrow $400 million to repair damaged homes and infrastructure

Climate change is overwhelmingly driven by the richest in society and by the historical and current emissions of the global north, but it is the poorest communities in the global south that are paying the price. Last week, I hosted a “Creative for climate justice” event, organised by Oxfam and Christian Aid, with primary school students who showed us their inspiring art. Their powerful and effective message was that climate justice is social justice.

Like others, I have been raising the issue of loss and damage for years in the Parliament: in committee sessions, at events and in motions in the chamber. I remember asking in 2021, before COP26, why Scotland was not showing leadership on the third pillar of the Paris agreement: loss and damage. To the credit of the then First Minister, Scotland did show that leadership at COP26 by being the first country in the global north to pledge dedicated funding—£2 million—to address loss and damage. That was a landmark moment. It sent a message across the world that wealthy nations can, and should, take responsibility for the harm caused by their emissions.

However, we cannot rest on the achievements of COP26. The world has moved on, the challenges have got bigger and, in Scotland, we have stalled at time when we need to be progressing faster. In April, the Scottish Government scrapped its climate targets, abandoning our formerly agreed-on ambitions. That has let down communities in Malawi, the Pacific and the global south that are already experiencing the climate emergency. We have failed to meet climate targets not only in eight of the past 12 years, but in nine of the past 13 years. We need action urgently. No pressure on the cabinet secretary, but we need a plan that will work, will be ambitious and will reduce our emissions—one that is not just about headlines but that makes real change in our communities.

Loss and damage are a massive issue. The fund agreed for it at COP29 was an important step, but much of it in the form of loans. As colleagues have said, that means the poorest countries are forced into debt to pay for the damage caused by others. That is not acceptable.

Scotland has shown that it is possible to deliver targeted, life-changing support through our climate justice fund. For example, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund’s £500,000 project in southern Malawi is helping communities to rebuild after tropical storm Ana and cyclone Gombe. The difference that the funding has made is profound, but it is a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed.

COP30 in Brazil begins next week. We have a chance to show that Scotland’s commitment to climate justice is not fading. We should use our voice internationally to push for a loss and damage fund that is accessible, transparent, and is based on grants, not loans.

Huge numbers of my constituents are calling for action. At our Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference on climate last month, the vulnerability of low-lying island countries was highlighted. That is an issue now, not for the future. We need to reflect on how we support low-income and vulnerable countries to develop new climate resilience and to use the opportunities that come from renewables, for example, to benefit them. Loss and damage is not just about rebuilding what has been destroyed: it is about a fair transition, justice and solidarity. We need to think about what kind of world we want to build for future generations.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the experience of women who miscarry needs to be looked at, too? One of my constituents had to wait while two parts of the NHS argued over who should see her, because her pregnancy was at the 12-week point—too late for the early pregnancy unit but too early for the triage unit. She then had to return several times for checks on her pregnancy hormone levels, which were not reducing. She was in an area alongside pregnant women but she had miscarried her baby. Will the cabinet secretary take action now to ensure that our constituents in Lothian get the change that is urgently needed?

Questions have been raised about a course of conduct and failures that are not just a one-off incident or accident but harm caused over time. I was thinking about repeated failures—pollution in particular—in which existing environmental legislation has been breached but there has been no action and legal accountability has not been triggered. We have existing legislation and we have this bill proposal. Should the bill include the concept of a course of conduct, such as the impact of pollution over time? Would that fill the gap between failures under existing legislation and ecocide? There is a gap here, and no accountability.

One of the points that was made in the earlier questions was about the lack of action in such cases—that such reporting happens, but without any legal consequence for the perpetrators.

Should that clarification be in the bill or in subsequent guidance? Guidance has been mentioned a few times.

That is why I raised the issue.

We had evidence at the start of today’s session about the lack of enforcement. Do you think that there is no gap here at all? Would having a higher standard persuade some of those organisations not to break the law?

That would be useful, because I am certainly aware of breaches where nothing happens, which has an impact on communities. Do other witnesses have any views on this?