Meeting of the Parliament 05 February 2026 [Draft]
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Monica Lennon’s Ecocide (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. The protection of our natural environment is essential and, as such, it is an important priority for the Scottish Government. Last week, the Parliament passed the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, which strengthens the law for the first time in important areas, providing a framework for statutory targets.
The Scottish Government has supported the general proposal to introduce an offence of ecocide for the most extreme, wilful and reckless cases of harm. The offence should be understood as something new, standing above the existing offences that relate to environmental damage. It is a particular type of new offence, which is not designed to address behaviours that occur regularly. Rather, it is an offence that is designed to cover the most serious actions—those that, at the very least, we would not expect to occur more than once in a generation and those that we hope will never occur. The actions would have to be so serious that there would need to be a commensurate legal provision to match them. It is hoped that the existence of an ecocide offence on the statute book would further discourage the incidence of what are extreme, serious and—thankfully—rare incidents.
Through the development of the bill, I have had useful, positive discussions with Monica Lennon, who came to me relatively early after her decision to lodge her proposal. She has developed her thinking on an ecocide offence. The public consultation that was carried out by Monica Lennon when she was developing the proposal received wide public support, and many environmental organisations have supported the development of the bill.
I have been clear throughout the process that, as drafted, the bill has some significant flaws. In particular, I have raised concerns about the point of incompatibility with the European convention on human rights and the interaction with permitting systems and the reporting duty. The NZET Committee’s stage 1 report is admirably thorough in setting out not only the concerns that I raised at stage 1 but the committee’s own concerns and the issues that were raised in evidence. The committee makes a range of recommendations, many of which involve seeking reassurance from the member in charge of the bill, the Scottish Government or both.
Although the committee remains positive about a new higher-level environmental offence, a majority of the committee concluded that there is no realistic prospect of the concerns being addressed before this session of the Parliament ends, notwithstanding what the convener just said. On that basis, the committee recommended that the bill should not proceed any further.
I have considered the committee’s report very carefully. As I already set out to the committee, there are areas where the bill merits amendment—I have said that from the get-go. We are already well prepared on those issues. We have been working on potential amendments, should the bill proceed, and are in regular conversation with Ms Lennon on that. However, Ms Lennon must adequately consider ahead of stage 3 the remaining issues that the committee raised. No doubt she will address some of the convener’s comments in her closing speech.
On that basis, the Scottish Government will continue to support the general principles of the bill in the debate. I and my officials will continue to work with Ms Lennon and the non-Government bills unit to ensure that we support the committee’s consideration of the bill at stage 2.
I turn to a couple of specific issues that the committee report raised. The report discusses the overlaps between the proposed new ecocide offence and the offence of committing significant environmental harm under section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014. That issue has been considered throughout stage 1, including in the Scottish Government’s memorandum, which was part of the evidence that I gave to the committee.
It is important that the bill and the new offence of ecocide offer something additional to that body of existing environmental law. Further clarity is required on whether the interaction between the offences should be reflected in the bill. A review of the section 40 offence might be appropriate in the future, although the scope of such a review would depend on the Parliament’s consideration of the bill. That would be something for the next session of the Parliament.