Seòmar agus comataidhean

Would that not be, in effect, ecocide?

My point is that, if an eight-year prison sentence penalty were available under the 2014 act, would that lead to an equivalent ecocide provision? Are we thinking about something quite distinct by having ecocide at the apex of the legal system—

—or is it actually possible to create an ecocide offence under the 2014 act?

I want to ask whether the Government will look to amend some of the definitions, should the bill reach stage 2. The bill defines “long-term” as 12 months, but the committee received evidence that it is hard to see how an ecosystem could recover within 12 months, so there were questions about that definition. I do not know whether there are any aspects of the definition of ecocide that you have a firm view on at this time or whether you would be able to say that you will want to put a different figure on something or frame something differently.

I have been reflecting on the conversation this morning, and I will play devil’s advocate. If, under the 2014 act, the courts were able to give, say, an eight-year prison sentence as a result of action by somebody or a company that had led to severe and wanton environmental damage, with clear intent—the action was shown to be clearly wilful—would that, in effect, be ecocide? In our evidence, we have heard that there are lots of ways in which to implement an ecocide law. Monica Lennon has brought forward a clear proposal, but I am thinking about other options, including those under the 2014 act. If a responsible officer was imprisoned for eight years, with there being clear and wilful intent, would that, for all intents and purposes, be an ecocide conviction under the 2014 act?

I am not proposing anything at the moment; I am just exploring the territory. If that provision was available under the 2014 act, would the courts, when deciding whether to impose an eight-year sentence, be able to consider whether there had been a severe environmental impact and whether there had been clear intent? I am just exploring, from your perspective, the argument for a stand-alone offence.

We have been waiting a long time for that action plan, and I will be delighted to see the outcome of it.

I have a constituent who has been institutionalised in multiple hospitals for the past six years because there is no other option for him. That has resulted in direct harm to him and distress for his mum. We have recently had news that appropriate facilities for him might be opening up in the region, but they are still under development. Until they are opened, he is likely to remain stuck in hospital. Does the minister agree that more must be done now to support people such as my constituent and the many other institutionalised people across Scotland to exercise their basic human rights to independent living and to be included in their local communities?

To ask the Scottish Government, further to the assessment by the Scottish Human Rights Commission that disabled and autistic people are not being supported to exercise their right to independent living, as enshrined in article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, what discussions the social justice secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding action that can be taken to address this. (S6O-05216)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

I did not, and that is why I have lodged amendments 1 to 3, which would delete part 2. Putting that proposal on the table enables the Government to think again, between stage 2 and stage 3, about the purpose of the bill and about where we need flexibility.

I do not think that giving ministers an indefinite power effectively to rewrite environmental assessment and habitats regulations provisions is appropriate for a bill that is primarily about tackling the nature emergency. In theory, that could allow the watering down of 40 years’ worth of EU environmental legislation, and it would ignore the Parliament’s desire to keep pace with European Union legislation. Given the evidence, I am struggling to see what the case is for that flexibility. We are still struggling to understand how sites are already designated under the habitats regulations, what the process is for that and why there is no flexibility to make adjustments that could assist with nature restoration.

I will listen to the arguments. I have heard the arguments from Alasdair Allan, and later I would like to hear the cabinet secretary’s reflections on where she is in relation to part 2, but I think that it is important to have the option that I have presented on the table. I will push it to the vote, because we need to know where we stand, at least at stage 2. We will see which amendments get passed in this group, but I would like there to be further discussion between stage 2 and stage 3, because I do not feel that we will have concluded our thinking on the matter by the end of our consideration today.

Amendment 26 picks up on the committee’s recommendation at stage 1 to revisit the sunset clause on the keeping-pace power in the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021. That power is due to expire in 2027, but the Parliament has the option to extend it to 2031. This is an area where the ability to adjust habitats regulations and environmental assessment will be needed in the future if we are to remain broadly in line with the European legislation framework that has protected the environment across Europe—nature knows no boundaries.

The committee’s stage 1 report said:

“the Committee does not expect these suggestions to have significant policy implications. They would also give the Scottish Government the opportunity to undertake a thorough review of the operation of the EIA legislation and Habitats Regulations, as suggested by some stakeholders”,

but not to break out of the European policy framework. That is the context for amendment 26. Obviously, we cannot fix environmental legislation in a moment in time, but the stakeholders who gave evidence seem to believe that the existing system provides flexibility, and we need flexibility in relation to alignment with future EU laws. Amendment 26 would give that flexibility.

That is my starting point for discussion. Let us see where we get to.