Seòmar agus comataidhean

There is a concern that ecocide could have been committed but that it would be hard to hold anyone to account for it, because of the threshold.

We have been talking about the section 40 offence in the 2014 act. You would prefer this legislation to amending the section 40 offence in the 2014 act—

SEPA questioned the costs that are in the financial memorandum on leading on investigating an ecocide event. Other organisations, such as NatureScot, have key environmental protection roles. Section 9 will expand enforcement powers. Do we need to enable other authorities to have enforcement powers?

You cut me off before the second half of the question. Yes, this is new legislation, but I put on the record that we have heard concerns from some organisations that they are challenged financially to implement the existing legislation. We heard in previous evidence that there has been a doubling of public complaints but the number of prosecutions has significantly declined. Is there an issue with existing law that needs attention as well as the consideration of ecocide? The two issues are linked. That has been suggested to us by different organisations.

Like the previous two speakers, I want to respond to the concerns that the committee raised at stage 1 but also those that were raised by a raft of stakeholders who got in touch because they were worried about unintended consequences from this section of the bill, which provides ministers with the wide-ranging power to modify key environmental protections. I want to try to reintroduce protections into the bill.

First, I thank the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management for its support in crafting the amendments, which have four clear aims for improving the bill: greater clarity and precision in drafting, ensuring that the legislation is easier to interpret and aligned with the structure elsewhere in the bill; a clear non-regression guarantee that requires ministers to confirm that any changes do not weaken existing environmental protections, a safeguard that is in line with Scottish environmental ambitions and international obligations; stronger alignment with our duties under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994; and ensuring that modifications respect the management objectives of the UK site network and the conservation needs of environmentally important habitats.

The key issue of enhanced parliamentary oversight has already been mentioned this morning, and I noticed reference to a ministerial statement being required. My ambition is to strengthen the bill, and there are different ways of doing that.

My amendment 5 is about clarity and precision, strengthening accountability and improving the consistency of drafting across the bill.

My amendment 6 is a generic non-regression safeguard for any regulations that are made under part 2. As has already been said, we have nature and climate crises and we need to address them both, but we also need safeguarding standards, and amendment 6 seeks to close a loophole and reinforce public trust. Environmental law should be thinking ahead, not looking backwards. We need the bill to align with Scotland’s wider commitments on climate and environmental ambitions and not to erode them by making technical changes.

My amendment 7 would make sure that, when the Scottish ministers were considering regulations, they would think about how any modification or restatement conformed with their duties in relation to the UK site network, under the habitats regulations. Again, I want to make sure that there is consistent application in line with existing statutory duties when looking at the conservation of European sites in Scotland and no undermining of the management and protection of those critical habitats. Amendment 7 is therefore about protecting the integrity of the UK site network by not allowing minor technical changes to have a big impact, as well as about strengthening environmental leadership and embedding accountability in the bill.

It was interesting to hear Alasdair Allan’s speech in favour of his amendments. My version, which is set out in my amendment 8, is about limiting ministerial discretion, enhancing democratic oversight and preventing ministers from bypassing proper parliamentary scrutiny. As drafted, the bill definitely risks allowing significant changes to be made with only procedural approval. My amendment would ensure that powers could not be exercised without a full, proper legislative debate and would avoid authority being expanded without accountability. The list of provisions that my amendment 8 would remove includes serious matters such as arrest powers, search powers and fees, which should not slide through under secondary legislation. Again, it is a matter of power.

My amendment 9 would remove section 3(e)—stakeholders raised many concerns about it at stage 1—in order to tighten the scope of ministerial powers, prevent overreach, focus on genuine policy purposes and prevent technical tidying up being done by the back door to weaken or dilute environmental standards and safeguards.

My amendment 10 is, again, about narrowing ministerial powers. The phrase

“to improve or simplify the operation of the law”

is vague and could lead to wide-ranging changes.

The concerns are that part 2 goes far too far and is not proportionate. That is why quite a few of us have lodged amendments. It is about the issue of ministerial accountability and getting that balance right. The idea behind the affirmative procedure is about making sure that the Parliament gets to formally approve any regulations, so that they do not simply slide through. It is absolutely crucial that we do not weaken protections by accident. That is why we are all trying to test the purpose and impact in terms of future decisions.

The purpose of my amendments is to fix those problems in the legislation, and I engaged with stakeholders to see how we could do that. It is up to committee members to decide which options they want to support. I was trying to be constructive by increasing accountability and avoiding that non-regression challenge by preventing environmental regulations being inadvertently reduced. I was trying to come up with amendments that would help and strengthen the bill, because, as you suggested, the current wording significantly weakens environmental protections. It is about getting that joined-up thinking and accountability.

My amendment 10 would ensure that changes are substantive and accountable, that we debate such issues openly in the Parliament and that they do not just slip under people’s notice. Accountability cannot be left only to ministerial discretion through secondary legislation. I was trying to drive joined-up thinking and action on the climate and nature crises that we face and that will only get worse. What a minister sees as simplification might weaken environmental protections, so I wanted to include protections in the bill. It is up to the committee members to decide how to vote.

I have listened to Alasdair Allan’s suggestions about what his amendments would do, and I will listen to the rest of the debate.

One of the issues that I mentioned was new criminal offences or charges that could be created through secondary legislation. Can you confirm whether the affirmative procedure would be required for such a change? It is about being proportionate in using that opportunity.

Like the previous two speakers, I want to respond to the concerns that the committee raised at stage 1 but also those that were raised by a raft of stakeholders who got in touch because they were worried about unintended consequences from this section of the bill, which provides ministers with the wide-ranging power to modify key environmental protections. I want to try to reintroduce protections into the bill.

First, I thank the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management for its support in crafting the amendments, which have four clear aims for improving the bill: greater clarity and precision in drafting, ensuring that the legislation is easier to interpret and aligned with the structure elsewhere in the bill; a clear non-regression guarantee that requires ministers to confirm that any changes do not weaken existing environmental protections, a safeguard that is in line with Scottish environmental ambitions and international obligations; stronger alignment with our duties under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994; and ensuring that modifications respect the management objectives of the UK site network and the conservation needs of environmentally important habitats.

The key issue of enhanced parliamentary oversight has already been mentioned this morning, and I noticed reference to a ministerial statement being required. My ambition is to strengthen the bill, and there are different ways of doing that.

My amendment 5 is about clarity and precision, strengthening accountability and improving the consistency of drafting across the bill.

My amendment 6 is a generic non-regression safeguard for any regulations that are made under part 2. As has already been said, we have nature and climate crises and we need to address them both, but we also need safeguarding standards, and amendment 6 seeks to close a loophole and reinforce public trust. Environmental law should be thinking ahead, not looking backwards. We need the bill to align with Scotland’s wider commitments on climate and environmental ambitions and not to erode them by making technical changes.

My amendment 7 would make sure that, when the Scottish ministers were considering regulations, they would think about how any modification or restatement conformed with their duties in relation to the UK site network, under the habitats regulations. Again, I want to make sure that there is consistent application in line with existing statutory duties when looking at the conservation of European sites in Scotland and no undermining of the management and protection of those critical habitats. Amendment 7 is therefore about protecting the integrity of the UK site network by not allowing minor technical changes to have a big impact, as well as about strengthening environmental leadership and embedding accountability in the bill.

It was interesting to hear Alasdair Allan’s speech in favour of his amendments. My version, which is set out in my amendment 8, is about limiting ministerial discretion, enhancing democratic oversight and preventing ministers from bypassing proper parliamentary scrutiny. As drafted, the bill definitely risks allowing significant changes to be made with only procedural approval. My amendment would ensure that powers could not be exercised without a full, proper legislative debate and would avoid authority being expanded without accountability. The list of provisions that my amendment 8 would remove includes serious matters such as arrest powers, search powers and fees, which should not slide through under secondary legislation. Again, it is a matter of power.

My amendment 9 would remove section 3(e)—stakeholders raised many concerns about it at stage 1—in order to tighten the scope of ministerial powers, prevent overreach, focus on genuine policy purposes and prevent technical tidying up being done by the back door to weaken or dilute environmental standards and safeguards.

My amendment 10 is, again, about narrowing ministerial powers. The phrase

“to improve or simplify the operation of the law”

is vague and could lead to wide-ranging changes.

I have looked at the reports that have been produced by different committees over the years, including those on the national performance framework and the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. There are occasionally reviews in Parliament, but the legislation that we have at the moment is not delivering. The Finance and Public Administration Committee’s 2024 review of the national outcomes highlighted that we are not making the progress that we need to make. It also talked about the need for wellbeing and sustainable development legislation, which helped to push me forward.

There is a need to strengthen the legislation, because having a public duty pushes things up people’s agendas. If something is just seen as being nice to have, it will not happen. Some of the reports that have been produced show that we are not getting the reviews that we need. You mentioned the national performance framework and the national outcomes. It is striking that reviews of the national outcomes are done every five years—that is in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. The Scottish Parliament information centre blog shows the work that has been done, but we are not getting implementation on the national performance framework and the national outcomes.

We need to pull this together and push it up the agenda. Until we do that, we will not get the action that people agree that we need but which is not being implemented across public bodies and the Government.