Meeting of the Parliament 05 February 2026 [Draft]
I thank Monica Lennon for bringing forward Scotland’s first ever ecocide legislation. I was delighted to be at the launch of her bill in Edinburgh a couple of years ago. We also both took time in Reykjavik, at the Arctic Circle assembly, to meet international law makers who are pushing for this change globally.
This is a truly a global green movement for change, which reflects that humanity is living through the Anthropocene—a period of lightning-fast destruction caused by just one species on this planet. It is therefore right that an offence of ecocide is reflected in law, and it should be a criminal offence of the highest order to intentionally destroy our environment and our common future.
I am pleased that the Scottish Government has accepted that principle and that it wants us to join the flotilla of countries that are embedding ecocide into their domestic legislation, but how we achieve it in Scotland in a way that dovetails with our existing laws is important. The Scottish Greens will be backing the general principles of the bill, but I am aware, through the evidence that we have taken in committee, that major amendments will be required if the bill is to pass stage 3 in the weeks ahead.
Adopting an ecocide offence cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach across the world, and Scotland’s framework of environmental law is relatively well developed, stemming from the decades that we spent in the European Union. An ecocide offence in Scotland makes sense. It would sit at the apex of our legislation with the strongest penalties available where there has been severe widespread long-term environmental damage that has been intentionally caused.
Section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 also provides a way for higher penalties to be issued to those who cause some of the worst forms of environmental harm. Increasing the penalties under section 40 would provide another way to incorporate the principle of ecocide into Scots law and would align with the provision in the EU environmental crime directive.
Unlike some members, I do not see the provisions in Monica Lennon’s bill and an enhanced section 40 of the 2014 act as being direct alternatives. However, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service told the committee about the challenges of pursuing a prosecution under ecocide legislation rather than section 40 of the 2014 act and the choices that prosecutors would face in that regard. They would have to make trade-offs between the lower likelihood of a successful prosecution and the severity of a maximum sentence and a higher burden of proof under Monica Lennon’s bill’s version of ecocide. Clarity needs to be provided on how both options can co-exist and on how prosecutors and juries could navigate between the two pieces of legislation.
I note the cabinet secretary’s response to the committee, which was issued last night.