Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is helpful, Monica. I will not push further, other than to ask for a tiny bit of clarity. What you have said previously about operating under a licence or permit has been helpful, but there is no specific time period for that. Theoretically, if someone meets the threshold that you have put on record, but the process concerned occurred over a longer time—perhaps a number of years—that could still meet the threshold for ecocide. You have spoken about weeks and months, but an individual event could take place over a number of years, theoretically. I just want to get clarity on that.

Thank you for making that tangible and concrete, Dr Dingwall. It has been quite a challenge for me this morning, but I think that I understand that.

The conference of the parties that the cabinet secretary has referred to will involve the UK Government trying to reach an international agreement on a range of matters that are reserved to it—quite rightly, under the current constitutional settlement, anyway—and on matters that are devolved. That means that both Governments in Scotland will be in lockstep in relation to those negotiations. What is the process for the Scottish and UK Governments signing up to that? Has the Scottish Government been given any assurance in relation to any of that?

That is helpful. A number of witnesses have suggested to the committee that an ecocide offence should explicitly cover omissions or failures to act, as is the case under section 40 of the RRA, as I understand it. However, last week, the cabinet secretary seemed to say that that would not be necessary, because, as it stands, the bill would already cover that. Is it the policy intention of the bill to include omissions as well as acts? If that is the case, are you satisfied that the bill is clear on that?

We are reading over the evidence on what we mean by ecocide. Is it a catastrophic single incident that causes widespread and obvious damage? Is it a course of conduct by a single operator over a much longer period, with incremental damage leading to what some might interpret as ecocide?

Environmental Standards Scotland said that it was not clear

“how the cumulative impact of a number of events over an extended period would be captured”,—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 4 November 2025; c 26.]

but the Crown Office took a different view, saying that

“the definitions in relation to course of conduct are pretty clear in the provisions”.—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 11 November 2025; c 9.]

There is therefore a bit of conflict in the evidence that we have heard. It would be helpful to know what the policy intent is, and whether you considered all that in developing the bill. What is your view on how the definition might capture that type of harm? Are the provisions clear in the bill, and what is the policy intent in relation to it?

I think that we are all flying blind.

That is helpful. I know that there is a threshold that would apply to whether the test for the criminal offence has been met. However, you have talked about the offence happening over a period of time and I am trying to flesh that out a little bit. There is an event and there is a process and there could be a distinction between those, although maybe not in the eventual outcome of what could be defined as an ecocide. Whether a company, a farmer or an organisation is doing something in good faith or not, as the case may be—that would have to be established—in the past 10 years, the test for an ecocide might not be met from one year to the next.

If we do a compare and contrast from 2011 to 2021 on biodiversity or anything else, we might find that there has been a stark change and that the test has been met. Is there a particular time period that must apply, or are the provisions completely open ended, covering a course of conduct over one year, two years, five years or 10 years, irrespective of what the threshold is for reckless conduct and so on?

Irrespective of what is agreed at the conference of the parties, I take it that the UK Government will have to bring in a suite of powers and regulations to give effect to whatever is agreed internationally, in order to make sure that organisations across the UK comply with the UK’s international obligations. That is perhaps where it impinges on devolved competences.

Dr Dingwall said that agreements might be made more generally, but there are deep seabed mining and marine licensing regimes to consider. I will not comment on rocket launches, but there is also carbon capture and wave power. The Scottish Government would be acting in accordance with its rules, licensing regimes and regulations, but there would be a UK layer that could dictate what that looks like at a Scottish level on matters that were previously devolved. Is that where the rub is? Is that why you are looking for consent to be required from the Government and the Parliament, rather than just to be consulted?

I am not sure where that leaves the committee, but thank you, cabinet secretary.

I am just checking—could we still say that we had created an ecocide offence, because we could put that in the bill that amended the 2014 act—

So it is possible, but it would perhaps not be as visible as the member in charge of the bill would like it to be. I just wanted to check that.

When we are wrestling with the difference between an ecocide offence and reform of the 2014 act, we need to look at the definition of “ecocide” in relation to there being “serious adverse effects” that are either “widespread” or “long-term”. The committee’s notes referred to that as a bespoke definition; I think that you also used that term earlier, cabinet secretary. Is that definition necessary, and is it appropriate to define “severe environmental harm” in the way that is done in the bill for the purpose of an ecocide offence?