Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am grateful for the opportunity to listen to Clare Haughey’s expertise.

I think that the Wishaw NICU is award winning because of the excellent care by the staff and their close bond with families who have to keep going back there for on-going care.

Does she recognise that that is why the planned changes are so frightening for families, including those who have put the lives of their babies in the hands of that hospital and would not have their babies without it? Does she understand why the calls to pause the review are growing louder and louder, and that we need to do what we can to save that unit?

[Made a request to intervene.]

Clare Adamson mentioned the numbers, which sound small when they are on a spreadsheet or in an email to MSPs. The reality is that there is no capacity in Glasgow or Edinburgh. Families are going to Aberdeen. In Lanarkshire, we have high levels of poverty and inequality, and we are going to separate families at a hugely vulnerable time. The numbers might be few and might sound small, but if we add them up, we can see that a lot of lives will be turned upside down. Surely that is worth fighting for.

Thank you, convener. I thank the panel members for their time today. The Scottish Government helpfully sent a letter about the bill to the committee a few weeks ago. It says that the

“Government is supportive of the proposal to introduce an offence of ecocide, properly understood as being for the most extreme, wilful and reckless cases of harm.”

We have had a lot of discussion today about the potential overlap, or how the 2014 act and the bill can complement one another. On the point about the most extreme impact and harm against the environment, how important is it that the public, and everyone who is involved in looking after the environment, understands that we are talking about the most severe harm? Do you agree that having a stand-alone ecocide act—I hope—sends the important signal that we are talking about something that is really quite severe and distinct?

I do not know who would like to go first. Not everyone needs to answer, because I will be told off for taking up too much time.

I have a last question on that point, just so that I am clear about this. The committee has a huge interest in the climate change plan, which we know will be coming out very soon. Did the expert SAF working group feed into that plan in any way, or had it already been put into abeyance before that work had developed?

Good afternoon. We know that the Scottish Government will be publishing its climate change plan imminently—I think that the Government told us that in writing today. However, I want to take us back to the previous climate change plan update in 2020, which included a commitment to decarbonise scheduled flights within Scotland by 2040. Minister, are you able to confirm whether that is still Scottish Government policy?

I will wrap things up with a couple of points. I have just come back from a conference in London on ecocide law, human rights and environmental justice, at which people from around the world were providing legal expertise. It is clear that there is momentum with regard to criminalising ecocide at international level and making it an international crime, but there is also a lot going on with domestic legislation coming forward, not just in the EU but in countries around the world.

Ross Haggart mentioned that criminals do not respect boundaries and that they look for what is sometimes seen as low-risk and high-value activity. Waste crime, for example, is a big issue; indeed, Interpol has been doing some work on it in recent weeks. The EU environmental crime directive has to come into effect in all member states next May, so things are moving very fast. We have been hearing reports, including recently from the House of Lords, that waste or environmental crime is a fast-growing area. What could be the risk to Scotland if we do not have an ecocide crime set out in criminal law, given that lots of our neighbours and partners around the world are being very active in this space?

I see Ross Haggart nodding, so I will come to him. If anyone wants to add anything briefly, that would be great.

I see that Ross Haggart is nodding along. Are you in agreement with Professor Hendry?

I will ask you a brief supplementary, Professor Gemmell, while we have you unmuted.

Obviously, this session is part of stage 1 scrutiny, and there has been a lot of consultation and front loading of the bill to get it to this stage. Given where we are in the parliamentary cycle, and the fact that we are looking at dissolution sometime in March, do you agree that there has been a benefit in having public discussion and engagement on the bill in order to make the process more transparent, particularly as we are talking about severe penalties and punishments? Do you agree that there has been a robust process to get public buy-in?

The minister mentioned that the working group was in abeyance. Have the members of that group been stood down or are they on standby to come back?