Meeting of the Parliament 05 February 2026 [Draft]
I, too, thank Monica Lennon for her work on the bill and for introducing it in Parliament. I know just how much work is required to introduce a bill in our Parliament. I also thank the expert witnesses who gave evidence to the committee, the stakeholders and all our parliamentary staff.
As members who have read the committee’s stage 1 report will know, there are key issues that need to be considered in relation to the drafting of the bill and its potential impact. The bill would create a new crime and there would be consequences for intentional or reckless severe environmental destruction, with the court being able to impose an unlimited fine, a prison term of up to 20 years, a compensation order or a publicity order.
Monica Lennon has made the key argument that the European Union environmental crime directive will see EU states strengthening their legislation and increasing their penalties, and it is vital that we do not fall behind other countries but send a clear message that ecocide is not acceptable.
There were several key issues on which the committee took evidence that suggested that we need a joined-up approach to section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 if the bill is to be passed. There was clear support for increased penalties, and the fact that the cabinet secretary has been working with the member on key areas where the bill needs to be amended is important.
The cabinet secretary made an important point at committee when she said that she hoped that the bill would never have to be used, because it would meant that such a severe event had occurred. However, the fact that we would not want to use legislation does not mean that we should not have it in place, because the deterrent effect is important. Therefore, the comments made by witnesses to the committee that we need an “apex” to our environmental crime legislation are also right.
The key issue, which has already been mentioned, is that there is a striking lack of prosecutions and convictions under section 40 of the 2014 act. However, Professor Campbell Gemmell said that we should not assume that the lack of a section 40 prosecution does not mean a lack of environmental harm being caused, and he made the observation that the number of public complaints has doubled while the number of prosecutions has significantly declined. That needs to be considered.