Official Report 781KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20606, in the name of Monica Lennon, on the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
14:26
I begin by declaring a financial interest, which is listed in my entry in the register of interests: I have received in-kind support from Stop Ecocide International.
Today, we have a historic opportunity to join a global movement and take the first step towards introducing ecocide law in Scotland. The bill recognises a simple truth: the most egregious acts of environmental destruction must be treated as the serious crimes that they are. Scotland must be more ambitious. The aim of the bill is to prevent mass environmental destruction by introducing severe penalties, including a new offence under criminal law. That is a deterrent that is designed to change corporate culture and to send an unmistakable signal that Scotland values our nature above illegal profit.
There is a growing international recognition that existing laws are insufficient to protect our planet. The bill has received wide-ranging support from the public, businesses, workers and experts, echoing a trend that has been seen in Belgium, in France and far beyond.
I am deeply inspired by the work of Polly Higgins, the late Scottish lawyer and environmentalist. Polly understood that, to protect nature, we must change the rules. By criminalising ecocide, Scotland would show solidarity with those nations that are most affected by climate change and biodiversity loss. As Polly once said, it is a
“simple law to protect the Earth”.
I agree. It is a necessary guardrail for our fragile planet, not just globally but locally.
This year, 2026, is the year of green activity, an initiative that was recently launched by Unison to underscore the movement of workers who demand greener and safeguarded workplaces and communities to live in.
Today is the culmination of stage 1 scrutiny. I thank the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and the other committees involved for their diligent work. I am encouraged by the cross-party support for strengthening environmental law, and I warmly welcome the Scottish Government’s support for the general principles of the bill.
I acknowledge the committee’s concerns regarding the limited time that is left in this parliamentary session. To that end, my bill officials and I have been working intensively with the Scottish Government to draft amendments that address the themes that were raised during the evidence sessions. We are committed to consulting key stakeholders to ensure that their expertise fully informs stage 2.
I turn to the offence. The bill defines ecocide as causing “severe environmental harm” that is either reckless or intentional. Severe harm means harm that is either widespread or long-term. Critically, the bill allows for both individuals and organisations to be convicted. Penalties are significant: individuals could face up to 20 years in prison, and, for organisations, there is no limit on fines. Furthermore, the courts will be empowered to require compensation to repair or mitigate the damage caused.
I want to be clear on two points that were raised during scrutiny. First, on permits, I note that the bill would not criminalise legitimate licensed activities. It is not designed to target businesses that are operating responsibly under current regulations or to impact planning decisions. Members should think of it as a regulatory pyramid, with ecocide law overarching at the top.
Secondly, on the existing law that we have in Scotland, some people have asked whether we can simply amend the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. I do not believe that that is sufficient. The 2014 act deals with strict liability, but ecocide requires a stand-alone crime with a high threshold and corresponding penalties.
Last month, the United Kingdom Government published a national security assessment that identified ecosystem collapse as a direct threat to security and prosperity. That report, which was produced by the UK intelligence community, adds to the evidence base for the need to have an apex environmental law. I will probably return to that in more detail in my closing remarks, as I respond to colleagues’ questions about particular suggestions for amendments.
Our purpose today is not to resolve every technical detail but to agree on the general principles of the bill, so that we may proceed to stage 2. The committee’s main concern is time, not principle. I reassure members that the work to address concerns is well under way, for which I am extremely grateful to the cabinet secretary, her officials and the Parliament’s non-Government bills unit. To allow that work to continue at pace tomorrow, we can say yes today and take this urgent step towards preventing environmental destruction for generations to come.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill.
I call Edward Mountain to speak on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.
14:32
I congratulate Monica Lennon on introducing the bill. I know that she has put a huge amount of work into it, and we have had a good discussion at stage 1. I thank all those who engaged with the committee during our scrutiny of the bill and, in particular, the committee members and our clerks for their hard work and diligence during the process.
The committee agreed from the start that this is a debate worth having. There is a case to be made for strengthening the law. We heard views that the current legal framework lacks an apex offence for serious environmental damage, with penalties to match. We heard about the potential deterrent effect that the new offence might create and how it might influence corporate behaviour for the good, even if prosecutions are rare. We heard views that it would be one way—not necessarily the only way—to keep pace with revised European law.
However, the committee also found two other things. First, the evidence as to whether there is much of a gap in the law is finely balanced. Regulators and prosecutors told us that the existing powers—in particular, section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014—appear to be more than capable of addressing quite serious harm. They struggled to identify examples of cases that would clearly have met the proposed ecocide threshold.
Secondly, and even more importantly, our scrutiny found significant concerns about the clarity and workability of definitions of key terms in the bill such as “severe environmental harm”, “widespread” and “serious adverse effects”. Prosecutors and regulators emphasised the importance of legal certainty, especially if prosecution could mean a huge fine or a long spell in prison. Doubts were raised about whether some of the current drafting has the legal certainty that is required.
There was also a concern about unintended consequences. I referred to the potential deterrent effect as an argument for the bill. It could affect risk appetite, but there is another side of the coin. The bill does not provide a defence of carrying out permitted activities or exercising lawful functions, such as approving a planning application. We heard serious concerns about that. We heard that the bill could have a chilling effect on decision makers.
Then there are the practical challenges of enforcement, such as those of establishing the thought process in complex corporate cases, of getting right the detail of employer liability and of allowing alternative convictions if the jury is not persuaded that the conduct was bad enough to justify a finding of ecocide. There is also the fact that the current section 40 offence has barely been used at all. Why is that? That needs to be looked at.
If the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill, those issues are not going to go away. The committee was not unanimous on the general principles, but all of us agreed that if the bill reaches stage 2, evidence will need to be taken on those matters—including views from experts on the wording of the proposed amendments. Most of us doubted that there was sufficient time left to get it right and ensure that we have a robust, workable law on the statute book. It is fair to say that I am concerned about where we go from here.
There are two bits of unsolicited advice that I give to the members in the next parliamentary session, from somebody who will not be here in May. First, please let us not have members’ bills on complex, controversial issues introduced so late in the parliamentary session. It is unfair on the member in charge of the bill and on the lead committee. It is not where we should start from if we want to make good law.
Secondly, let us not have another Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, with its near-impossible remit—it is far too wide and diverse and there are far too many issues to keep on top of. At a point at which some other committees might be winding down, as a committee, we are busier than ever, with the scrutiny of the draft climate change plan coming to a head, loads of important subordinate legislation, legislative consent memorandums on other matters, and the latest issues on ferries—to mention nothing about the Railways Bill.
If the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill proceeds, I will, of course, respect the will of the Parliament and try to adhere to whatever deadlines are set. However, I want to be crystal clear that it will be a serious challenge to scrutinise the bill in the time that remains, to make good law and to make sure that it is effective. Personally, I do not believe that it is a challenge that we can achieve.
14:37
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Monica Lennon’s Ecocide (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. The protection of our natural environment is essential and, as such, it is an important priority for the Scottish Government. Last week, the Parliament passed the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, which strengthens the law for the first time in important areas, providing a framework for statutory targets.
The Scottish Government has supported the general proposal to introduce an offence of ecocide for the most extreme, wilful and reckless cases of harm. The offence should be understood as something new, standing above the existing offences that relate to environmental damage. It is a particular type of new offence, which is not designed to address behaviours that occur regularly. Rather, it is an offence that is designed to cover the most serious actions—those that, at the very least, we would not expect to occur more than once in a generation and those that we hope will never occur. The actions would have to be so serious that there would need to be a commensurate legal provision to match them. It is hoped that the existence of an ecocide offence on the statute book would further discourage the incidence of what are extreme, serious and—thankfully—rare incidents.
Through the development of the bill, I have had useful, positive discussions with Monica Lennon, who came to me relatively early after her decision to lodge her proposal. She has developed her thinking on an ecocide offence. The public consultation that was carried out by Monica Lennon when she was developing the proposal received wide public support, and many environmental organisations have supported the development of the bill.
I have been clear throughout the process that, as drafted, the bill has some significant flaws. In particular, I have raised concerns about the point of incompatibility with the European convention on human rights and the interaction with permitting systems and the reporting duty. The NZET Committee’s stage 1 report is admirably thorough in setting out not only the concerns that I raised at stage 1 but the committee’s own concerns and the issues that were raised in evidence. The committee makes a range of recommendations, many of which involve seeking reassurance from the member in charge of the bill, the Scottish Government or both.
Although the committee remains positive about a new higher-level environmental offence, a majority of the committee concluded that there is no realistic prospect of the concerns being addressed before this session of the Parliament ends, notwithstanding what the convener just said. On that basis, the committee recommended that the bill should not proceed any further.
I have considered the committee’s report very carefully. As I already set out to the committee, there are areas where the bill merits amendment—I have said that from the get-go. We are already well prepared on those issues. We have been working on potential amendments, should the bill proceed, and are in regular conversation with Ms Lennon on that. However, Ms Lennon must adequately consider ahead of stage 3 the remaining issues that the committee raised. No doubt she will address some of the convener’s comments in her closing speech.
On that basis, the Scottish Government will continue to support the general principles of the bill in the debate. I and my officials will continue to work with Ms Lennon and the non-Government bills unit to ensure that we support the committee’s consideration of the bill at stage 2.
I turn to a couple of specific issues that the committee report raised. The report discusses the overlaps between the proposed new ecocide offence and the offence of committing significant environmental harm under section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. That issue has been considered throughout stage 1, including in the Scottish Government’s memorandum, which was part of the evidence that I gave to the committee.
It is important that the bill and the new offence of ecocide offer something additional to that body of existing environmental law. Further clarity is required on whether the interaction between the offences should be reflected in the bill. A review of the section 40 offence might be appropriate in the future, although the scope of such a review would depend on the Parliament’s consideration of the bill. That would be something for the next session of the Parliament.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that the changes would have to be so substantial that it would only be right for the committee to take more evidence on what the amendments could do to the bill?
I respect what the convener said in that regard. As he pointed out and as I know as the former convener of two committees, a judgment is made on behalf of committee members about what additional evidence a committee might want to take. It is up to the committee to make that decision, so I will demur from giving my point of view on it.
The report discusses the bill’s potential impact on the planning system and permitted activities. I have given further thought to that and discussed it with the Minister for Public Finance, Ivan McKee, following the evidence that the committee received from local authorities, and I am well placed to lodge amendments at stage 2. However, I would be happy to work with any member who is similarly considering amendments on that, including Ms Lennon, members of the committee or members in the wider Parliament.
Other issues that the stage 1 report raised include definitions in the framing of the offence, the bill’s treatment of cumulative harm, omissions and courses of conduct. The report also makes some recommendations about the provision of guidance. Those matters were discussed during stage 1 evidence gathering and, although the committee raises concerns that they are not fully resolved, I am confident that we can reach satisfactory positions to guide consideration at stage 2. The Government is willing, as is Ms Lennon—she has stated that already—and I hope that other members will be involved in that, should they wish, and that they will engage with both of us.
I take seriously the concerns that the committee raised. I am very grateful to the committee members for their consideration of the bill. I have to say that I agree with Edward Mountain. I took a member’s bill through the Parliament in the previous session and I started it early. My advice, as well as Mr Mountain’s, is that, if members start early, such issues will not arise.
14:43
We have reached the crunch time of our parliamentary session, when bills such as the one that we are debating simply do not have the time and space to be debated properly and implemented correctly.
I pay tribute to the member in charge for her tireless work in the area. I have enjoyed the conversations that we have had in and outwith committee, so I thank Monica Lennon for that.
Many people in the north-east will pin their hopes on the bill when they see the environmental damage planned by companies such as Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. I thought that the bill would stop that damage and that I would vote for the bill. Such projects cause damage on a huge scale. However, the more evidence I heard, the more I came to the conclusion that the bill would not prevent them. On the example of substations, who would be liable? Who would be responsible? Would it be companies such as SSEN or, if they had planning permission, would it be the planning authority? Would it be the councillors who granted the planning permission? Would it be the Scottish Government, which set the planning framework? I do not feel that those questions were answered.
At committee, we wrestled with the question of permitted actions, and I do not think that we had time to get to the bottom of it. The committee’s report on the bill raises the issue of the clarity of definitions of key terms in the bill. Terms such as “widespread” and “long-term” are insufficiently robust. The committee also felt that the approach to those who would be liable for ecocide was too narrow, and there were concerns about incompatibility with the ECHR.
As a member of the committee and having heard all the evidence, I agree that the bill is not in a place whereby we can take it beyond stage 1. Laws that we already have in place could be amended to create an ecocide offence. For example, amending section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 would work better. The fact that we are a Parliament that can make new laws does not mean that we should necessarily pass new legislation. As parliamentarians, we have the important tasks of keeping our legislation and laws up to date and relevant while keeping things relatively simple.
I am genuinely surprised that the Government, having read the committee’s report, has chosen to ignore it and support the bill. If the bill is agreed to at stage 1 today, we will, as a committee, have to take more evidence on it. Significant amendments will be required, and we have only 21 sitting days of the current session left.
I declare an interest as a fellow member of the committee, although I was recused from scrutiny of the bill.
I recognise that, like other committees, the committee has a high workload. However, does the member feel reassured by me and the cabinet secretary that work on the amendments has already started? The memorandum that the cabinet secretary sent to the committee in September set out the Government’s thinking. I have been working on the bill for a long time, and I will work rapidly to ensure that we have a small but streamlined set of amendments. Does the member put trust in me, as one of his fellow committee members, that I will not waste valuable parliamentary time but will work to ensure that he can vote on a bill that his constituents in North East Scotland also support?
I absolutely trust that Monica Lennon would not waste any parliamentary time, but we have to respect the deadlines and timescales that are set out in our standing orders. The more quickly stage 2 amendments are lodged, the more quickly we will be able to start taking evidence on their impact. However, with only 21 sitting days of the session left, I feel that the committee is already trying to do too much, and I do not think that we will be able to do the bill justice.
The bill seeks to introduce unlimited fines and a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, so Parliament has to get it right. It has to be good law, and it is for that reason that, regrettably, I cannot support the bill at stage 1. I feel that it is severely flawed, through no fault of the member in charge of it, and the evidence that we took during the committee’s evidence sessions highlighted those flaws. The best route would be a review of the existing penalties, to be carried out in the next session of Parliament. I hope that I and Monica Lennon will both be back here in that session, so that we can get on with that.
14:48
I, too, thank Monica Lennon for her work on the bill and for introducing it in Parliament. I know just how much work is required to introduce a bill in our Parliament. I also thank the expert witnesses who gave evidence to the committee, the stakeholders and all our parliamentary staff.
As members who have read the committee’s stage 1 report will know, there are key issues that need to be considered in relation to the drafting of the bill and its potential impact. The bill would create a new crime and there would be consequences for intentional or reckless severe environmental destruction, with the court being able to impose an unlimited fine, a prison term of up to 20 years, a compensation order or a publicity order.
Monica Lennon has made the key argument that the European Union environmental crime directive will see EU states strengthening their legislation and increasing their penalties, and it is vital that we do not fall behind other countries but send a clear message that ecocide is not acceptable.
There were several key issues on which the committee took evidence that suggested that we need a joined-up approach to section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 if the bill is to be passed. There was clear support for increased penalties, and the fact that the cabinet secretary has been working with the member on key areas where the bill needs to be amended is important.
The cabinet secretary made an important point at committee when she said that she hoped that the bill would never have to be used, because it would meant that such a severe event had occurred. However, the fact that we would not want to use legislation does not mean that we should not have it in place, because the deterrent effect is important. Therefore, the comments made by witnesses to the committee that we need an “apex” to our environmental crime legislation are also right.
The key issue, which has already been mentioned, is that there is a striking lack of prosecutions and convictions under section 40 of the 2014 act. However, Professor Campbell Gemmell said that we should not assume that the lack of a section 40 prosecution does not mean a lack of environmental harm being caused, and he made the observation that the number of public complaints has doubled while the number of prosecutions has significantly declined. That needs to be considered.
Will the member take an intervention?
I apologise, but I have only four minutes.
That is important, because the potential impact of deterrence would have to be backed up by guidance and training for those involved in reporting instances and those involved in prosecutions. That would mean more joined-up work and adequate resources for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Environmental Standards Scotland, NatureScot, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the police.
I agree with committee colleagues that the bill needs to be amended, but the fact that work has already been done between both the member in charge of the bill and the cabinet secretary is important. Useful points were made about joined-up thinking during committee meetings. For example, it was suggested that there could be an alternative conviction provision to avoid a gap between existing legislation and new ecocide legislation. Therefore, it is important that we are already having constructive discussions.
More guidance for regulators on the definition of ecocide, such as ecological criteria, scientific indicators and practical examples, is important, because we need to ensure that those who exercise power and control in organisations are held to account. Issues such as contractor-subcontractor relationships also need to be flagged at the next stage.
I agree with what was said in the discussions that the committee had about the bill’s application to properly consented activities. Again, the concerns from key sectors will be addressed not only through amendments to the bill but through guidance from Government.
Although the committee members did not all agree that the bill should progress to stage 2, I do not think that we should kick it into touch. It will need work, but that is not an argument for our voting it down today.
14:52
I thank Monica Lennon for bringing forward Scotland’s first ever ecocide legislation. I was delighted to be at the launch of her bill in Edinburgh a couple of years ago. We also both took time in Reykjavik, at the Arctic Circle assembly, to meet international law makers who are pushing for this change globally.
This is a truly a global green movement for change, which reflects that humanity is living through the Anthropocene—a period of lightning-fast destruction caused by just one species on this planet. It is therefore right that an offence of ecocide is reflected in law, and it should be a criminal offence of the highest order to intentionally destroy our environment and our common future.
I am pleased that the Scottish Government has accepted that principle and that it wants us to join the flotilla of countries that are embedding ecocide into their domestic legislation, but how we achieve it in Scotland in a way that dovetails with our existing laws is important. The Scottish Greens will be backing the general principles of the bill, but I am aware, through the evidence that we have taken in committee, that major amendments will be required if the bill is to pass stage 3 in the weeks ahead.
Adopting an ecocide offence cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach across the world, and Scotland’s framework of environmental law is relatively well developed, stemming from the decades that we spent in the European Union. An ecocide offence in Scotland makes sense. It would sit at the apex of our legislation with the strongest penalties available where there has been severe widespread long-term environmental damage that has been intentionally caused.
Section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 also provides a way for higher penalties to be issued to those who cause some of the worst forms of environmental harm. Increasing the penalties under section 40 would provide another way to incorporate the principle of ecocide into Scots law and would align with the provision in the EU environmental crime directive.
Unlike some members, I do not see the provisions in Monica Lennon’s bill and an enhanced section 40 of the 2014 act as being direct alternatives. However, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service told the committee about the challenges of pursuing a prosecution under ecocide legislation rather than section 40 of the 2014 act and the choices that prosecutors would face in that regard. They would have to make trade-offs between the lower likelihood of a successful prosecution and the severity of a maximum sentence and a higher burden of proof under Monica Lennon’s bill’s version of ecocide. Clarity needs to be provided on how both options can co-exist and on how prosecutors and juries could navigate between the two pieces of legislation.
I note the cabinet secretary’s response to the committee, which was issued last night.
Will the member take an intervention?
If there is time in hand, I will.
There is a bit of time.
Given the concerns that you have raised, do you believe, as I do, that, if the bill proceeds, it is really important that we get any amendments in early, so that we can take evidence on them and know whether they are any good?
Always speak through the chair.
I agree with our convener. We almost need a form of expedited process. I am not talking about a change to standing orders; I simply mean that we need a way of looking at the evidence that will come to the committee, the amendments and the views that we will receive on those amendments. I am looking forward to that process, although I think that it will involve some late nights.
It has been hard for the committee to get its head around the breadth of the bill that Monica Lennon has put before Parliament. This is really challenging stuff. At stages 2 and 3, we will need to get our heads around whether there is a consensus on key areas of the bill that need to be changed.
In her response to the committee’s stage 1 report, the cabinet secretary says that the opportunity for further reform of section 40 of the 2014 act in this session has passed. However, she will be aware that my colleague Ross Greer moved amendments at stage 2 of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill to increase the penalties under the RRA, and I am sure that that is an area that Green MSPs will want to address in some form at stage 2. We cannot allow perpetrators of environmental crime—especially those who have been reckless and have damaged the environment through neglect—to get away with ecocide because the crime may be too difficult to prosecute under the bill’s provisions.
In my closing speech, I will turn to some other aspects of the bill and the evidence, but I reassure Monica Lennon that Scottish Green MSPs will be voting for her bill at stage 1 at decision time.
I call Liam McArthur to open on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.
14:57
I join others in congratulating Monica Lennon on getting a bill to this stage, as I know only too well that, irrespective of the complexity of the bill, it takes an awful lot of work, commitment and effort to do so. As a signatory of the bill, I echo the sentiments of the NZET convener—this was a debate worth having and that needed to be had. I thank the committee for the work that it has done in allowing that debate to take place and in testing the evidence that has been received. I put on record my thanks to all those who have given evidence.
The bill has highlighted what happens in the current legal landscape and has identified the sorts of crimes that we mean when we talk about ecocide. In doing so, it has confirmed what appears to be a worrying lack of action to date in addressing those crimes. I will turn to that shortly. As the convener acknowledged, the bill aims not just to punish but to deter. Although there are some issues there, I think that that is a desirable dual purpose.
The evidence that was provided to the committee showed that there was broad support among stakeholders for the idea that instances of serious environmental harm ought to be dealt with through commensurate criminal penalties. That view is shared by Scottish Liberal Democrats. In that context, I note the evidence that the committee received from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, which suggested that, in recent years, the existing legislative provisions have been sufficient in dealing with cases of serious environmental crime, while other legal and regulatory experts pointed to areas of the criminal law that could be applicable.
There has already been quite a bit of discussion about section 40 of the 2014 act, but I find myself in agreement with what Mark Ruskell said. One of the issues that will need to be teased out if the bill progresses to stage 2 is how, in practice, we ensure that we do not have overlaps in the system that end up creating confusion, which would work against the aims that we all want to be achieved.
I do not underestimate the complexity of striking that balance. I find myself in some sympathy with the convener, not least because of some of the interactions that we have had at the Conveners Group on the work pressures on committees at this stage in the parliamentary session.
I note the views of the cabinet secretary and the support of the Government at this stage, and I note the confidence and the willingness of Monica Lennon as the member in charge to work at pace to try to address the issues that have been raised by all speakers to date. On that basis, the Scottish Liberal Democrats are prepared to support the bill at stage 1 to allow it to progress.
We will now move to the open debate. There is a small amount of time in hand at this point, but we will see how that goes.
15:00
I commend Monica Lennon for introducing the bill and for her tenacity in getting it to this stage.
The word “ecocide” is from the Greek “oikos”, which means home, and “cide”, meaning killing—so it means killing our home, also known as planet earth. Today, the issue could not be more pressing. In an era of accelerating climate breakdown, biodiversity loss and environmental injustice, doing everything that we can to protect our environment—our planet—is not optional but essential.
The modern understanding of ecocide is, sadly, rooted in real and devastating modern history. During the Vietnam war, as an act of war, the USA sprayed more than 19 million gallons of the herbicide agent orange over south Vietnam to deliberately destroy crops and starve the so-called enemy—everybody. The results were devastating, affecting millions in Vietnam, and US veterans, through cancers, birth defects and long-term ecological harm, forcing the world to confront and seek to define the crime of ecocide. That question has echoed through international law ever since. Despite numerous efforts to codify and legislate against the crime of ecocide, notably in the drafting of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court, getting it on the statute books seemed to be very difficult for us.
However, the campaigns and momentum for the formal recognition of the crime of ecocide have only grown since then, thanks in large part to the much-loved late Polly Higgins, Scottish barrister, author and inspirational environmental lobbyist—and a good friend. Polly presented a definition of ecocide to the United Nations International Law Commission in 2010 that reads:
“Ecocide is extensive loss, damage or destruction of ecosystems of a given territory … such that the peaceful enjoyment of the inhabitants has been or will be severely diminished.”
Pope Francis referred to that definition in his call for ecocide to become a crime in 2019. I am sure that, when she looks down on us today, Polly will be proud of where her legacy is taking us.
In 2024, the European Union adopted its revised environmental crime directive, strengthening criminal sanctions for serious environmental harm. That directive has marked a significant step forward and lends weight to the argument that environmental accountability now has unprecedented political and legal support.
The direction of travel is clear. The time to act is now—not tomorrow, not at some undefined point in the future, but now. Today, Scotland can join the growing recognition. International examples reinforce that message. Kazakhstan adopted an ecocide law, following the major environmental atrocities that took place there, including catastrophic damage linked to the destruction of the Aral Sea. Importantly, Kazakhstan is not alone. Belgium has now included ecocide in its criminal code. Beyond Europe, countries such as Brazil and Mexico are actively exploring similar legal approaches.
Scotland will not be acting in isolation; we will be joining a growing global movement that recognises the need to protect ecosystems through strong and enforceable law. Closer to home, discussions on ecocide are also taking place within the United Kingdom. In 2023, Baroness Boycott—that is her real name—tabled a private member’s bill, which sadly fell at the previous UK election. Let us not let that happen here. Scotland has an opportunity to lead, show ambition and set a clear example of how environmental protection and justice can be embedded in our society.
I understand that some concerns have been raised about implementation and enforcement, which is reasonable. Those concerns deserve serious consideration. However, I also note that, although the Law Society of Scotland acknowledged the overlap with section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, it has also made it clear that there is scope for adaptation, which would allow the bill to sit within the existing framework without being unduly complex or onerous. It believes that the clear focus of the bill makes that possible.
I am pleased to support the bill and hope to promote the work of Polly Higgins going forward.
I reiterate that there is a bit of time in hand, so I am able to be a wee bit generous. If that time gets used up, I will let members know
15:06
In the coming weeks, I will be leaving this Parliament for the very last time. When I was first elected 10 years ago, I vowed in coming here to leave the world better than when I found it. I am not sure that I have done that, but I believe that Monica Lennon, who was first elected in the same election as me, in the same region as me and from the same party as me, can say that, in that time, she has made a difference by taking on period poverty and stigma, and now with this bill, by taking on those guilty of causing severe environmental harm.
The bill will make criminal accountability for intentional and reckless environmental destruction not a theoretical consideration but a legislative reality. That is precisely what the Parliament was founded to do—to legislate, to act and to leave the world better than when we found it. So when I hear members of this Parliament or read of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation—the gun club—speculating on unintended consequences, I say to them: what about the deliberate, the calculated and the intended consequences of the wilful polluters, of the species destroyers and of the nature wreckers?
I have no truck with the shooting lobby, but as a member of the Parliament who is on the committee that is scrutinising the bill, is it right that we scrutinise potential unintended consequences? Would that not be our job as legislators?
The point that I am making is that there has been talk in briefings that we have received about unintended consequences. The overarching purpose of this bill is absolutely crystal clear, which is why we should pass it at stage 1.
For me, this modern question of ecocide is part of an old socialist tradition that goes all the way back to William Morris, whose concern for the natural world was integral to his philosophy of socialism. He warned, a century and a half ago, that commerce and the pursuit of profit would
“blacken rivers, hide the sun and poison the air”,
not least because of the unequal distribution of wealth and power—an inequality of power that we still have to address.
For the avoidance of doubt, this ecocide bill before us is not intrinsically anti-capitalist or anti-business or anti-development—it is simply about justice; it is about corporate accountability. This is about establishing a principle of absolute liability. The whole point of the legislation is not that it will be a stick, but for it to be a carrot that will deter bad behaviour; that it will not be an incentive for judicial action, but a disincentive for criminal behaviour.
So to those who are opposing this ecocide bill, I am bound to ask, “Which side are you on?”, because you cannot be on the side of nature, conservation and the common good and be an ally of the polluter and the corporate criminal at the same time.
Of course we need proaction, not simply reaction. Of course we need prevention, not simply criminalisation. Of course we need global co-operation. Ecocide laws are being adopted across the world.
We already know that much damage to our ecosystem is irreversible, that it is threshold dependent, that it can have a long gestation period and that when our ecosystem becomes overloaded over time, it snaps. That is why, in my view, this ecocide law should, rightly, address long-term harms that are cumulative.
Let us all be clear that we are talking about creating a law that would be additional to existing laws—one that the Law Society recognises as distinctive—and that it is needed. When we are told that there have not been many prosecutions under current law, such as section 14 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, I say that just because there have not been many prosecutions, that does not mean that there have not been many environmental crimes committed.
So I welcome the proposed ecocide law as a proportionate and dissuasive measure. It is a great privilege to speak in this debate this afternoon, because now is the time and now is the hour.
15:11
I am pleased to speak in support of the bill, because, at its heart, the legislation is about justice: justice for our environment, justice for our communities and justice for future generations, who will inherit the consequences of the choices that we make today. I thank the member in charge, Monica Lennon, for bringing the bill forward, and I thank the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee for its scrutiny.
Too often, environmental harm is treated as an unfortunate side effect of progress—something to be managed after the damage has already been done. However, for many communities across Scotland, environmental harm is not abstract, and it is certainly not evenly shared. It shows up in polluted air, degraded land and contaminated water, and in the loss of local livelihoods and green spaces that people rely on for their health, wellbeing and sense of place. That is why the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill matters. It asks us to draw a clear moral and legal line that the large-scale destruction of our natural environment is not just regrettable but unacceptable.
Crucially, the bill recognises that environmental destruction is inseparable from social injustice. Communities that experience the worst environmental harms are often those that are already facing economic disadvantage, poor health outcomes and political marginalisation. Whether it is industrial pollution, extractive practices or reckless development, the costs are borne locally while the profits flow elsewhere. We just have to look at the devastating and lasting impact of the collapse of the coal industry in my constituency of Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, which required restoration work costing upwards of £160 million of public money. Not only did we lose the industry, we lost habitats and species. The bill begins to rebalance that equation by placing responsibility where it belongs: on those who make the decisions that cause the severest of harms.
Environmental justice is about more than protecting landscapes; it is also about protecting people. Clean air should not be a privilege and safe water should not depend on our postcode. Access to a healthy environment should be a basic right and not a luxury. By establishing ecocide as a serious apex offence, the bill strengthens the tools that are available to prevent harm before it happens, rather than asking communities to pick up the pieces afterwards.
The bill also sends a powerful message about the kind of economy that we want to build. A just transition cannot be built on environmental sacrificial zones or on the assumption that some communities are expendable. The bill supports a future where economic activity is compatible with ecological limits and where innovation, investment and job creation are aligned with long-term wellbeing rather than short-term gain.
For Scotland, this issue is also about leadership. We have often said that we want to be at the forefront of progressive environmental policy. The bill gives further substance to those ambitions by embedding accountability and prevention at the highest level of decision making. It challenges all of us—Government, business and public bodies alike—to act with care, foresight and responsibility. As we have already heard, that will put us in line with other countries around the world that have introduced ecocide laws.
The climate and nature crisis demand urgent action. They demand courage, clarity and a willingness to rethink the rules that have allowed environmental harm to persist for far too long. Supporting the bill is an opportunity to say that justice in Scotland means social justice and environmental justice together, not one at the expense of the other.
Thankfully, instances of ecocide are, indeed, rare, with estimates that it happens only once in every 10 to 20 years, but the impact on our planet and people means that those instances must be treated as being much graver than a simple regulatory breach.
I urge members across the chamber to engage constructively with the bill, to listen to the communities that have long called for stronger protection and to recognise that safeguarding our environment is safeguarding our shared future. We should support the bill at stage 1 and make it workable via early amendments.
I call Bob Doris.
15:15
I did not realise that I was next, Presiding Officer.
I start by commending Monica Lennon on her efforts to introduce her bill and get us to this stage. As a member of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, I heard an impassioned plea from the member for the creation of an ecocide offence that would be a new criminal offence for the most serious environmental harms. Various environmental organisations clearly agreed with Ms Lennon on the need for that.
However, it is also reasonable to acknowledge that much of the evidence to our committee suggested that legislation might not be required or, at least, that there were other ways of achieving the same outcome. For instance, we heard that amending existing legislation, particularly section 40 of the Regulatory Reform Act (Scotland) 2014, might be a more co-ordinated and obvious route to having a specific offence of ecocide. I still believe that that is a distinct possibility.
That said, the committee was also concerned about a lack of prosecutions for offences that would fall short of ecocide, depending on how it is defined, using current section 40 provisions under the 2014 act. Our committee wants to see a “short, targeted review” of those provisions, examining whether there are procedural, evidential or resource constraints. In her contribution, Sarah Boyack talked about resource constraints, which are perhaps limiting the legislation’s effectiveness.
It is important to note that environmental offences under section 40 can lead to a fine of up to £40,000 or five years in prison, but that provision has not been used. We should not pretend that the bill will fill a gap so that environmental crimes in our communities will suddenly get a higher tariff. We have the powers to police and prosecute environmental crimes, but the prosecutions are not happening. Environmental harm is already a criminal offence, which could be added to in order to take account of a more serious form of environmental damage. The bill before us could introduce unlimited fines and up to 20 years in prison, so the threshold is much higher. Intent to cause environmental harm would have to be shown, and recklessness might have to be demonstrated. That is quite right, given the significant tariffs if a prosecution is successful.
One question is whether, following a review, we should reform the 2014 act and legislate as required, or legislate now for the new stand-alone offence. That is a reasonable question to ask. However, there is a wider question, which is why the heck this Parliament has not done proper post-legislative scrutiny of the 2014 act in the first place. That would have informed us in a much more substantial way ahead of considering this legislation.
We have to look at whether there is a benefit to a stand-alone ecocide offence. There perhaps is some advantage. Some witnesses, as well as the member in charge of the bill, passionately believe that a stand-alone offence would offer a greater deterrent. They have also talked about the offence being at the apex of a suite of potential prosecutorial pathways. They have argued that the new offence might help us to align with the revised EU environmental crime directive. Amending section 40 of the 2014 act could do the same thing. You pays your money and you takes your choice as to what the best pathway is to securing what we all want to see.
As has been referred to, we all acknowledge that amendments are required in order for this bill to progress. The committee was concerned about the possibility of prosecutions, which take place under an ecocide offence, not succeeding. The threshold should be high—it is very high, because of the punishment that can be dispensed—and, therefore, a prosecution might fail. That is a distinct possibility if we pass the legislation. In such circumstances, obvious environmental offences might not be punished at all.
The committee believes that a court or jury should be able to
“convict of the section 40 offence on an ecocide prosecution”.
There should be a transferability between the new law, if it comes in, and section 40. Drafting any such amendment would require consultation with the Crown Office and environmental regulators, and such an amendment would be required, because the Crown Office described the possibility of a “double-or-quits situation”—whether to go for the prize of the big offence of ecocide or to go for an offence for which a conviction can be secured. It should not be an either/or situation.
If the bill is to proceed, it is self-evident that there will need to be much heavy lifting at stage 2 on matters such as potential prosecutions for permitted activities, planning consents, concerns over liability, cumulative harm—I do not quite agree with Mr Leonard on cumulative harm, but we will agree to disagree on that—and what “severe” means. In addition, what do we mean by “widespread” and by “long-term”?
Will the member take an intervention?
The member is about to conclude.
I apologise, Mr Leonard, but I cannot take the intervention.
My point is that the bill is well intentioned and it might have a positive impact, but it would take a lot of work at stage 2 to flush out all those issues. I say to Monica Lennon that she has my good will, if not my absolute support, this afternoon.
Thank you, Mr Doris. We move to closing speeches.
15:21
I thank Monica Lennon and Bill Kidd for raising the legacy of Polly Higgins, who reminded us all that, to protect nature, we must change the rules. Elena Whitham also pointed to the chronic environmental injustice that many communities in Scotland have faced for generations. Such injustice was seen in William Morris’s day. He wrote very eloquently about the injustice stemming from the industrial revolution, and we are still dealing with much of that legacy here today.
It is important that we consider ecocide on a national and a global basis. Bill Kidd is right to point to the need to embed the issue of ecocide in international treaties. On my social media every day, what I see happening in Gaza constitutes ecocide—it is a systematic destruction of Palestine’s environment.
Those are bigger issues but, regarding what we have before us this afternoon, I note that there has been widespread support for the bill, particularly from Scotland’s environmental regulators, who would have to work with and make sense of the bill within the existing framework of environmental law.
A number of members have referred to section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. The question of why we do not have more prosecutions has been asked. I do not know—perhaps it is because we are not seeing that level of environmental damage or because of the complexity and difficulties around bringing prosecutions under that measure.
However, I agree with Bob Doris that we need post-legislative review in this area. It is important that there is a “short, targeted review”, as the committee concluded, of whether the reasons are to do with resource constraints or other problems. Even though we are very late on in the session, I am looking for the Scottish Government to commit to having that review. If that means looking at the provisions of the bill and embedding something into it to require such a review, we should look at doing that. We cannot ignore what we already have on the statute books.
A number of members, including the cabinet secretary, have mentioned their hope that there would not be any ecocide prosecutions. I agree—I hope that we will never have a prosecution for ecocide in Scotland. That points to the power of the bill. It is a preventative and deterrent bill. Sarah Boyack spoke strongly on that point. I would have loved to hear Sarah Boyack speak in last week’s debate on my Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill, which is also about deterring harm and damage.
The committee heard evidence that having an ecocide offence in legislation would help to change the culture in corporations. I would have liked to have heard more on that, and if Monica Lennon has more evidence, it would be good to hear it. However, we are starting to hear more corporate voices. Tessa Clark, the chief executive officer of Olio, and the CEOs of six Swedish multinationals have come together to say, “Look, we are the ones who are responsible and we think that ecocide should be embedded in law.” I would like to hear more corporate voices, because when the corporate sector backs the bill, we are on to something.
A number of members have talked about the need for a major change in the bill, which Monica Lennon has already acknowledged. The required change is about providing an exemption for those who already have a permit. We know that our existing habitats regulations and environmental assessments are working within the licensing systems that we have. The Government tried to introduce powers to effectively allow a major change to those regulations through the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, but that was stripped out of the bill. I feel confident that the systems that we have, with Environmental Standards Scotland and others gauging and reforming the licensing system, give us a robust way to go forward, and there should be a permit exemption in the bill.
I am running out of time, but I go back to a point that the committee convener, Edward Mountain, raised with me. I think that it is important for Monica Lennon to come to the committee with some clear, agreed positions on amendments for the Scottish Government. I would like to see additional written evidence and reflection from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, from regulators and from others. There is a danger that we will run out of time for the bill, but I am confident, in agreement with Richard Leonard, that Monica Lennon will leave Scotland in a better place at the end of this session if the bill gets through.
15:25
I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour and to thank our colleague Monica Lennon and her staff for all the work that they have undertaken to bring forward this important bill. I also thank the committee members, clerks and all the stakeholders who have been involved in scrutinising the bill ahead of the stage 1 debate, and I thank those who have campaigned for it.
Today, the Parliament is being given the opportunity to support the general principles of the bill and to take a clear stance in defence of our environment. We recently passed the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, which rightly set targets in relation to environmental protection, but those targets will be meaningless if they are not backed up by action.
As members have made clear in the debate, ecocide is a serious threat to our environment that we must act to prevent. Monica Lennon is correct to say that we must be more ambitious. Ecocide is the destruction of our natural environment by human beings through deliberate or negligent acts. We have already seen various examples of potential ecocide internationally, from the use of chemical agents in warfare to mining, fracking, destructive fishing practices and the deforestation of the Amazon. We have also seen many deliberate actions that harm our environment in the UK. Water companies have been accused recently of illegally dumping sewage in our rivers and seas.
The bill is a way in which we can begin to take more action to deter the environmental threat that is posed by ecocide. As members have highlighted, the bill would create a new and specific criminal offence of intentional or reckless acts that cause severe environmental damage. We hope that it would deter individuals and corporations from engaging in environmental harm through sanctions, including imprisonment for individuals and limitless fines for corporations, and empower courts to seek compensation to address environmental damage.
Although Scotland would be the first nation in the UK to pioneer such an approach to deter ecocide, members have rightly noted that the bill would align Scotland’s approach with actions that have been taken by a number of other countries. Countries including France and Belgium have already passed legislation to address the threat that ecocide poses, while the environmental crime directive requires member states to strengthen penalties for severe environmental harm.
The committee made clear in its stage 1 report that Scotland lacks a clear offence that reflects the consequences of deliberate or reckless environmental destruction. I understand that the committee expressed concerns, which members have spoken about today, about definitions and how the bill would interact with existing legislation. Monica Lennon has indicated that she is willing to work with the Scottish Government and other members to address some of those issues should the bill progress to stage 2. Given the lack of time remaining in this session, I hope that that work is undertaken.
Scottish Labour is clear that the Parliament should agree to the general principles of the bill. We hope that it would never be used but would act as a deterrent. We also think that it is important to have it in place, in addition to the offences that currently exist, in the event of serious destruction of the environment. Adding a specific criminal offence to deter ecocide to the environmental offences that already exist could send an important signal that Scotland is serious about environmental protection. I hope that we will pass the bill at stage 1 today and that that will lead to further discussion about what more we can do.
I call Maurice Golden to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.
15:29
I begin by congratulating Monica Lennon on introducing the bill, because I know from personal experience how much work and determination are required to get a bill to stage 1. I also recognise the member’s long-standing commitment to environmental protection, which I share.
The bill represents an opportunity to take decisive action to prevent and, where necessary, punish acts of serious environmental harm. There is, of course, already provision in law to address environmental damage, but, as early as 15 years ago, the Scottish National Party manifesto for the 2011 election recognised that there was work to be done in this area and included a commitment to publish an options paper on an environmental court. Monica Lennon’s bill largely attempts to achieve something similar.
Rights without any means of enforcement are truly useless. As part of the United Kingdom, Scotland is bound by the United Nations Aarhus convention, which requires that people must be able to challenge situations in which their environmental rights are denied or in which environmental laws are broken. That is where we see the failure of the current environmental protections and associated legislation here in Scotland.
I therefore agree with Monica Lennon that the most serious cases should be treated as more than regulatory breaches. Creating a stand-alone offence would place such acts firmly in the realm of the criminal law. That matters because it would send a clear signal that environmental destruction is not a technical failure but a serious crime. It would also demonstrate that the Scottish Government expects businesses and the public alike to take their environmental responsibilities seriously.
There is growing international precedent for such an approach. Belgium and France have introduced ecocide laws, the Netherlands is considering similar action and the EU’s environmental crime directive requires member states to criminalise the destruction or damage of large or highly valued ecosystems and their habitats.
As with any bill at an early stage, there are important issues to consider, including compatibility with the ECHR, the scope of liability and the need for clear definitions to ensure legal certainty and effective enforcement. That last point is a decisive one. The majority view of the committee is that the bill should not progress, largely due to concerns that there is insufficient time to resolve the issues with the definitions. I have some sympathy with the members who dissented. Stage 2 would ordinarily be the appropriate point at which to test whether such concerns could be resolved, but instead, the committee recommends that new legislation be introduced in the next parliamentary session. I admit that that concerns me because it feels like kicking the can down the road: we should remember the much-hyped and much-delayed Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill, which ended up putting off meaningful action.
We have a dilemma before us. Parliament cannot credibly claim leadership on climate action if it repeatedly delays taking action but, with less than two months of this session remaining, we must also accept that rushed legislation is rarely good legislation.
I call the cabinet secretary, Gillian Martin, to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Government.
15:33
I will try to keep my comments brief, because I know that the member in charge will want to respond to the debate in full.
I have listened carefully to members’ contributions and I assure them that my officials and I will consider in detail the issues that have been raised in the committee’s report and in the contributions made today. This has been a fascinating debate and it has been interesting to hear members’ passion about the issue and their takes on Ms Lennon’s proposals. We have seen the Parliament working at its best and, although we might not all agree on the issues, there has been consensus that environmental crime should be punished in a way that deters environmental damage of whatever type.
I pay tribute to Monica Lennon for raising awareness of the importance of preventing serious damage—it is great that we are having this debate, and I do not want to kick the can down the road.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I will, in a second.
Monica Lennon has brought a global campaign to the Parliament. We will not be the front runners on this issue. Many countries—many members have mentioned which ones—have already taken this stance.
The committee has only seven meetings left, and we have already asked for another one. There will be three meetings on the climate change plan, and time for two of those is already allocated. If the bill is to go further, the cabinet secretary will have to lay out amendments in the next week or so to allow the committee to schedule the evidence. Is she in a position to do that?
I have already set out the nature of the amendments that we want to lodge: we want to replace the legal or persuasive burden in the defence of necessity with an expressly evidential burden; we want to remove the reporting requirement; and we want to add a defence of acting under a permit or under other authorisation. I have also said repeatedly that we have been working on amendments to the bill. Forgive me, but I will not put anything more on those on the record and so constrain my time.
However, I emphasise that I appreciate the constraints that the committee is under. I was in that situation as a convener at the end of the previous parliamentary session, when we were exiting the EU and all the statutory instruments were coming through in addition to the climate change plan. I completely understand such constraints.
Many members have expressed the hope that if the bill comes to its conclusion and is passed by the Parliament it will be a law that never has to be used in court. Given the severity of what we are talking about, such a situation must be avoided.
I have indicated that I am considering other amendments—ones that would be appropriate in response to the concerns that local authorities have raised—and the possible linking of the new offence to the existing offence under section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. I am also taking into consideration members’ comments about the very high bar for proving ecocide and the reticence that complainants might therefore have about going too high up the chain for fear of an allegation not reaching that high bar and a section 40 offence then not being made out. I have talked about that during stage 1.
I will leave the Parliament to decide how it wants to proceed. However—
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I am just about to sit down.
The Government remains supportive of the general principles of the bill at stage 1.
15:37
I thank all colleagues for their contributions to the debate. It is clear that members have put a lot of thought into the points that they wanted to make. I will repeat what I said at the beginning of the debate: I take the committee’s report seriously, I am grateful for its work, and I understand the time constraints on everyone’s work in the Parliament in February, as we find ourselves just ahead of an election.
However, we have to make every minute in the Parliament count. I again assure Edward Mountain, who is the committee’s convener, and all colleagues that work is well under way to identify the areas for amendment on which the Government and I agree. I am genuinely looking at all the committee’s recommendations to see where amendments are appropriate. I will work at pace—not in a rush, and not like a headless chicken, but in a serious, committed way—to get this done. I give the Parliament my word on that.
I agree with Maurice Golden and other colleagues that the issue is too important to kick down the road. The cabinet secretary is right; it is not about Scotland trying to show off that we are the front runners—we are not; we are lagging behind our neighbours in the European Union.
This week, the issue was raised in the House of Commons, where ministers are looking at the issue across portfolios, including in the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because, as Bill Kidd said, there was a bill in the House of Lords. I assure Bill Kidd that Baroness Rosie Boycott is a real person, who—like Russell Findlay, who is not here today—spent time as a journalist, investigating powerful, wealthy people and holding them to account. She worked with colleagues from across the benches in the House of Lords and also with people of no political persuasion.
Does Monica Lennon agree that precedent was set in the previous parliamentary session with the Tied Pubs (Scotland) Bill, which had—I think, from memory—around 247 amendments to be taken at stage 2 in March 2021, yet the committee worked hard to ensure that all those amendments were disposed of so that the bill could move to stage 3? The timescale that Monica Lennon is facing has been experienced and dealt with before by this Parliament.
As a socialist, I always have a glass that is half full, and I believe that we can get this done—I will move mountains to get this done.
You might have to.
I have great faith in Edward Mountain, even though he might be talking himself down today. As convener, he expertly chairs the committee every Tuesday morning.
As I look around at the colleagues who are in the chamber, I know that we can do this. As Douglas Lumsden said—I think that he is flirting with the idea of supporting the bill—it matters to the people of the north-east of Scotland; it matters to my constituents; and it matters to us all.
There are technical points for us to deal with. I understand members’ frustration and curiosity about section 40 of the 2014 act and why there have been no prosecutions. Colleagues have raised concerns about whether we have the right resources in place for our regulators, including SEPA. I hope that the bill has allowed that debate to open up.
I thank Bill Kidd for mentioning Polly Higgins, and I want to mention those colleagues, including Richard Leonard, who brought tears to my eyes. I cannot take people being nice to me—I am not used to it.
However, I reassure members that this is not about being sentimental or about Scotland trying to get headlines. We are now one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. We all love Scotland and we all care about its future, but we cannot be complacent any longer.
In committee, when the cabinet secretary was giving evidence, colleagues asked, “What if the bill puts off investment? What if people do not want to come to Scotland because we have an ecocide law?”. Well, I want people to know that we will have an ecocide law. We welcome investment and we want development, but we need it to be in the right place and done in the right way, and I have great trust in our planning authorities to do that. Maurice Golden is giving me a look; I note that my husband is a planner, so I have to say that I trust our planners. Planning is where I learned about protecting our environment, and we must recognise that planners already look at environmental impacts.
Amendments have already been set out in writing that we agree on, and we can work on them at pace. I am listening to all committee members, but it is up to the committee to agree the time to do the work. I will be working, and my door will be open to everybody. If we kick the issue down the road, we will do a great disservice not only to our current constituents but to future generations. That is why it is not just environmentalists backing the bill—it is health charities such as Asthma and Lung UK and bodies such as the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, because they know that our young people need a safer, healthier Scotland.
I thank the Scottish Government and all members who are backing the bill. To those who are not yet convinced because they are worried about the amount of time left, I ask them to give the bill a chance. I assure all members that I will work night and day to ensure that we will have a robust bill at the end of the process.
That concludes the debate on the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. There will be a short pause before we move to the next item of business.
Air ais
Portfolio Question Time