Seòmar agus comataidhean

We still do not know when the Scottish National Party will deliver the additional 3,500 teachers promised in the 2021 manifesto—or the 4,310 additional teachers, if we include the overall deficit in teachers since that promise was made. None of that will reassure my 13-year-old constituent Adam, who has barely been in school since August. He is not thriving and no longer wants to attend school, because his additional needs are not being met. Will the First Minister apologise to Adam and his family, who are now investigating home schooling because they are desperate? Will he agree to meet them in the new year and take steps not only to support Adam but to reassure the thousands of children and young people across Scotland who are being failed by this total system failure?

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the recent Educational Institute of Scotland findings that young people with additional support needs are being let down, and teachers are experiencing stress due to inadequate resourcing, in light of the reported reduction of nearly 20 per cent in specialist ASN staff since 2010, despite a rise of over 710 per cent in the number of pupils requiring such support since 2007. (S6F-04540)

I am very conscious of the time pressures this morning, but I want to pick up on an issue that our witnesses—in particular, Jess Pepper—have mentioned, which is whether the plan needs to be clearer on the governance and accountability arrangements that support it.

I know that time is precious, but I am keen to hear from our other witnesses whether they agree or disagree with Jess on that and also to hear from her what exactly needs to change. Jess, you mentioned the structure of the climate change plan and how it could be improved. Could you give a few examples on that? Does the Government have the skills and knowledge to do that, or does it need to engage with outside help?

I will come to Jess first and then maybe we could hear from others who want to comment on this theme.

Jess, I will just come back in for a moment. That is all really helpful. I look forward to those hustings, and I hope that I will get an invite.

What I am hearing is that, aside from people rightly wanting information—it is encouraging that they want to be involved and play their part—and the need to improve the plan’s presentation and ensure that we have the right balance of infographics and so on, there is still a question mark about where responsibility lies on many of the system changes that we need to see. Does the Government need to be clearer about who is responsible and taking the leadership role in certain sectors and on certain actions? If we can get those points made more clearly, that is when accountability and transparency can work more effectively.

I see that Jess Pepper is nodding; it may be that others are, too. I ask Jess to respond briefly, then I will bring in the rest of the panel.

Yes, convener. I will make this my final question. I will leave aside the issues about communication with the public, because those have been covered throughout our discussion.

Kevin Anderson and Lloyd Austin have mentioned our on-going relationship with oil and gas. I was reminded that, back in 2021, the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance was launched in Glasgow during the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties. At that time, the Scottish Government stated that it was in active discussions about joining it. I have asked several parliamentary questions about that, but it seems that there have been no developments. Given what Kevin Anderson and Lloyd Austin have said about the importance of phasing out oil and gas production in a managed way, through a just transition, does it matter that Scotland has not joined the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance? What is the significance of that, or does leaving that question hanging there send out mixed signals about the Scottish Government’s position?

I ask Kevin Anderson and Lloyd Austin to answer briefly.

We could get into hypothetical situations, but I will say that, when planning authorities are weighing up the likelihood of possible environmental harms, they already have to apply the precautionary principle under existing legislation, whether through national planning framework 4 or other guidance that is available to planning authorities. We have a very established regime of environmental impact assessment. As a former planning minister, you know that planning authorities have to set out their reasoning and be very clear on the material considerations that have been taken into account if they approve a development or depart from the local development plan in any way.

Take, for example, a situation where there is an awareness of a particular protected species in a locality that could be affected in some way but reasoning has been given as to why the planning authority is satisfied—perhaps because mitigation could be put in place through a buffer zone around an area where bats are known to fly, or whatever—and there then comes a point where the Crown Office is looking at an ecocide case and is trying to work out how the severe environmental destruction happened, who was responsible, who closed their mind to the possible harm and who intentionally caused it to happen or acted in a reckless manner. I cannot think of a circumstance in which planning officers, councils or a planning minister could, based on the best available evidence, be found guilty of intending to cause ecocide in that situation.

I want to reinforce the point that, under the bill, the ecocide offence would not be a strict liability offence, unlike the offence of significant harm in the RRA. Under the bill, a person would commit an offence if they intended to cause environmental harm or were reckless about whether environmental harm would be caused. Recklessness requires that the person closed their mind to the consequences of their actions and to whether any environmental harm would come about as a result.

Recklessness is accepted as sufficing to constitute a criminally guilty mind. I felt that that was important, given the serious nature of the proposed crime and the punishment for it, which would be up to 20 years in prison, unlimited fines, publicity notices and compensation orders. Omission, in contrast, does not necessarily involve knowledge or a high degree of culpability. That was my reasoning.

I would be open to looking at any of the committee’s recommendations, but I am in the same space as the Scottish Government on that. Some strong points have been made on the matter, but given that we are looking at criminal law, which has high penalties, it is very important that the mens rea test is included. Omission would not necessarily involve knowledge or a high degree of culpability. From where I am sitting, if someone potentially faces 20 years in prison, it is really important that there is proof of intent or recklessness.

At that point, it might be helpful to bring in Roz Thomson.

I need a coffee.