Meeting of the Parliament 05 February 2026 [Draft]
I apologise, but I have only four minutes.
That is important, because the potential impact of deterrence would have to be backed up by guidance and training for those involved in reporting instances and those involved in prosecutions. That would mean more joined-up work and adequate resources for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Environmental Standards Scotland, NatureScot, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the police.
I agree with committee colleagues that the bill needs to be amended, but the fact that work has already been done between both the member in charge of the bill and the cabinet secretary is important. Useful points were made about joined-up thinking during committee meetings. For example, it was suggested that there could be an alternative conviction provision to avoid a gap between existing legislation and new ecocide legislation. Therefore, it is important that we are already having constructive discussions.
More guidance for regulators on the definition of ecocide, such as ecological criteria, scientific indicators and practical examples, is important, because we need to ensure that those who exercise power and control in organisations are held to account. Issues such as contractor-subcontractor relationships also need to be flagged at the next stage.
I agree with what was said in the discussions that the committee had about the bill’s application to properly consented activities. Again, the concerns from key sectors will be addressed not only through amendments to the bill but through guidance from Government.
Although the committee members did not all agree that the bill should progress to stage 2, I do not think that we should kick it into touch. It will need work, but that is not an argument for our voting it down today.