Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the 33rd meeting in 2025 of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee. We have received apologies from Collette Stevenson.

Agenda item 1 is a declaration of interests. I welcome Claire Baker as a new member of the committee. It is good to have you here, Claire. I invite you to declare any interests that are relevant to the committee’s work.

Given that monitoring and evaluation have been mentioned, that provides an almost appropriate segue for me to hand over to Jeremy Balfour.

I put on record again that the committee welcomes your proactive approach to engagement thus far. Thank you for your evidence. That concludes our business in public.

For the record, I know that the Government does not think that the bill needs to be amended in that respect, but, as the member in charge of the bill, do you think that there is a need for greater clarity?

I understand that. The word “alignment” is forming in my head. I am thinking about a situation in which the UK Government decides, perfectly reasonably, that, under its international duties, it wishes—after consulting the Scottish Government—to implement its own regime within international boundaries, beyond the Scottish Government’s direct control. If there is one regime there but a different regime within Scotland’s boundaries, is there any possibility that the UK Government could think, “We’re doing carbon capture differently beyond 200 nautical miles; at 195 nautical miles, it’s being done in a different way, so let’s align those”?

I am thinking about the idea of alignment—I am not saying that there is a danger of alignment, but we could perhaps have a situation in which there is one regime for both the international jurisdiction and the Scottish jurisdiction, as the UK Government could bring in conditions for something that is overtly devolved.

I hope that I have expressed that correctly. My question is about the idea of alignment between what we currently do within the boundary of 200 nautical miles, which we keep hearing about, and what will be agreed internationally beyond 200 nautical miles.

I am going to try valiantly to understand this. Cabinet secretary, as things stand, what regulatory or legislative powers does the Scottish Government have in relation to boundaries beyond national jurisdictions for the Scottish fleet—for Scottish vessels that go out beyond 200 nautical miles? An agreement is going to be reached internationally on all that stuff, so what levers does the Scottish Government have within its devolved competences?

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?