Seòmar agus comataidhean

I warmly thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. It is important that we recognise that there has been an increase in racist hate crimes in the past year and that far-right groups are using the protests to intimidate marginalised people. Although buffer zones around accommodation could provide increased protection from fear and intimidation, that approach alone would not tackle the harmful rhetoric, scapegoating or false narratives being placed on people who are trapped in the asylum system.

Communities have gathered and organised to put on counter-protests and rallies in Perth that show clear solidarity and a refusal to allow people to be demonised and attacked. Beyond buffer zones, what action will the Scottish Government take to tackle the divisive messaging, build on that community solidarity and fight the far right?

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.

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 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.

To ask the Scottish Government what action is being taken to ensure the safety of people seeking asylum who are housed in hotels across Perth. (S6O-05467)

If there is time in hand, I will.

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.

If there is time in hand, I will.

To ask the Scottish Government what action is being taken to ensure the safety of people seeking asylum who are housed in hotels across Perth. (S6O-05467)

I warmly thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. It is important that we recognise that there has been an increase in racist hate crimes in the past year and that far-right groups are using the protests to intimidate marginalised people. Although buffer zones around accommodation could provide increased protection from fear and intimidation, that approach alone would not tackle the harmful rhetoric, scapegoating or false narratives being placed on people who are trapped in the asylum system.

Communities have gathered and organised to put on counter-protests and rallies in Perth that show clear solidarity and a refusal to allow people to be demonised and attacked. Beyond buffer zones, what action will the Scottish Government take to tackle the divisive messaging, build on that community solidarity and fight the far right?