Chamber and committees

I am pleased to speak in support of the bill, because, at its heart, the legislation is about justice: justice for our environment, justice for our communities and justice for future generations, who will inherit the consequences of the choices that we make today. I thank the member in charge, Monica Lennon, for bringing the bill forward, and I thank the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee for its scrutiny.

Too often, environmental harm is treated as an unfortunate side effect of progress—something to be managed after the damage has already been done. However, for many communities across Scotland, environmental harm is not abstract, and it is certainly not evenly shared. It shows up in polluted air, degraded land and contaminated water, and in the loss of local livelihoods and green spaces that people rely on for their health, wellbeing and sense of place. That is why the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill matters. It asks us to draw a clear moral and legal line that the large-scale destruction of our natural environment is not just regrettable but unacceptable.

Crucially, the bill recognises that environmental destruction is inseparable from social injustice. Communities that experience the worst environmental harms are often those that are already facing economic disadvantage, poor health outcomes and political marginalisation. Whether it is industrial pollution, extractive practices or reckless development, the costs are borne locally while the profits flow elsewhere. We just have to look at the devastating and lasting impact of the collapse of the coal industry in my constituency of Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, which required restoration work costing upwards of £160 million of public money. Not only did we lose the industry, we lost habitats and species. The bill begins to rebalance that equation by placing responsibility where it belongs: on those who make the decisions that cause the severest of harms.

Environmental justice is about more than protecting landscapes; it is also about protecting people. Clean air should not be a privilege and safe water should not depend on our postcode. Access to a healthy environment should be a basic right and not a luxury. By establishing ecocide as a serious apex offence, the bill strengthens the tools that are available to prevent harm before it happens, rather than asking communities to pick up the pieces afterwards.

The bill also sends a powerful message about the kind of economy that we want to build. A just transition cannot be built on environmental sacrificial zones or on the assumption that some communities are expendable. The bill supports a future where economic activity is compatible with ecological limits and where innovation, investment and job creation are aligned with long-term wellbeing rather than short-term gain.

For Scotland, this issue is also about leadership. We have often said that we want to be at the forefront of progressive environmental policy. The bill gives further substance to those ambitions by embedding accountability and prevention at the highest level of decision making. It challenges all of us—Government, business and public bodies alike—to act with care, foresight and responsibility. As we have already heard, that will put us in line with other countries around the world that have introduced ecocide laws.

The climate and nature crisis demand urgent action. They demand courage, clarity and a willingness to rethink the rules that have allowed environmental harm to persist for far too long. Supporting the bill is an opportunity to say that justice in Scotland means social justice and environmental justice together, not one at the expense of the other.

Thankfully, instances of ecocide are, indeed, rare, with estimates that it happens only once in every 10 to 20 years, but the impact on our planet and people means that those instances must be treated as being much graver than a simple regulatory breach.

I urge members across the chamber to engage constructively with the bill, to listen to the communities that have long called for stronger protection and to recognise that safeguarding our environment is safeguarding our shared future. We should support the bill at stage 1 and make it workable via early amendments.

The abuse and intimidation that we continue to witness in Perth and across the UK is deeply concerning and should have no place in our society. We know that ending the no recourse to public funds policy is essential for the long-term integration and wellbeing of asylum seekers. In the light of the increasing hostility within our communities, will the cabinet secretary provide an update on the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to challenge the UK Government on that policy?

The abuse and intimidation that we continue to witness in Perth and across the UK is deeply concerning and should have no place in our society. We know that ending the no recourse to public funds policy is essential for the long-term integration and wellbeing of asylum seekers. In the light of the increasing hostility within our communities, will the cabinet secretary provide an update on the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to challenge the UK Government on that policy?

I am pleased to speak in support of the bill, because, at its heart, the legislation is about justice: justice for our environment, justice for our communities and justice for future generations, who will inherit the consequences of the choices that we make today. I thank the member in charge, Monica Lennon, for bringing the bill forward, and I thank the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee for its scrutiny.

Too often, environmental harm is treated as an unfortunate side effect of progress—something to be managed after the damage has already been done. However, for many communities across Scotland, environmental harm is not abstract, and it is certainly not evenly shared. It shows up in polluted air, degraded land and contaminated water, and in the loss of local livelihoods and green spaces that people rely on for their health, wellbeing and sense of place. That is why the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill matters. It asks us to draw a clear moral and legal line that the large-scale destruction of our natural environment is not just regrettable but unacceptable.

Crucially, the bill recognises that environmental destruction is inseparable from social injustice. Communities that experience the worst environmental harms are often those that are already facing economic disadvantage, poor health outcomes and political marginalisation. Whether it is industrial pollution, extractive practices or reckless development, the costs are borne locally while the profits flow elsewhere. We just have to look at the devastating and lasting impact of the collapse of the coal industry in my constituency of Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, which required restoration work costing upwards of £160 million of public money. Not only did we lose the industry, we lost habitats and species. The bill begins to rebalance that equation by placing responsibility where it belongs: on those who make the decisions that cause the severest of harms.

Environmental justice is about more than protecting landscapes; it is also about protecting people. Clean air should not be a privilege and safe water should not depend on our postcode. Access to a healthy environment should be a basic right and not a luxury. By establishing ecocide as a serious apex offence, the bill strengthens the tools that are available to prevent harm before it happens, rather than asking communities to pick up the pieces afterwards.

The bill also sends a powerful message about the kind of economy that we want to build. A just transition cannot be built on environmental sacrificial zones or on the assumption that some communities are expendable. The bill supports a future where economic activity is compatible with ecological limits and where innovation, investment and job creation are aligned with long-term wellbeing rather than short-term gain.

For Scotland, this issue is also about leadership. We have often said that we want to be at the forefront of progressive environmental policy. The bill gives further substance to those ambitions by embedding accountability and prevention at the highest level of decision making. It challenges all of us—Government, business and public bodies alike—to act with care, foresight and responsibility. As we have already heard, that will put us in line with other countries around the world that have introduced ecocide laws.

The climate and nature crisis demand urgent action. They demand courage, clarity and a willingness to rethink the rules that have allowed environmental harm to persist for far too long. Supporting the bill is an opportunity to say that justice in Scotland means social justice and environmental justice together, not one at the expense of the other.

Thankfully, instances of ecocide are, indeed, rare, with estimates that it happens only once in every 10 to 20 years, but the impact on our planet and people means that those instances must be treated as being much graver than a simple regulatory breach.

I urge members across the chamber to engage constructively with the bill, to listen to the communities that have long called for stronger protection and to recognise that safeguarding our environment is safeguarding our shared future. We should support the bill at stage 1 and make it workable via early amendments.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. I want to spend a bit of time exploring the independent review into ADP and the on-going ADP case reviews. In response to the committee’s pre-budget report, the Scottish Government said that it will

“explore how reporting on ADP spending can better reflect its role in supporting disabled people”.

Will you expand on what that work will involve?

I agree with you. Finding out that one of the drivers was the increase in state pension age was a bit of a surprise; I had not even considered that. It was interesting to see that in the report.

What is the Scottish Government’s estimate of the cost of implementing the recommendations of the independent review of ADP? To what extent will cost be the deciding factor in the Scottish Government’s response to the review?

That is helpful. One of the key themes in evidence that the committee received was that ADP does not always reflect some conditions, such as more unusual or fluctuating conditions. You have mentioned the eligibility criteria, one of which is the over 50 per cent rule. The University of the West of Scotland has shared experiences of people with premenstrual dysphoric disorder, which is one of those more unusual conditions. There is evidence that there is limited awareness of that among case managers. Is there money in the budget for training and guidance for case managers to deal with more unusual cases? Is the over 50 per cent rule being looked at in considering Edel Harris’s recommendations?

That is helpful and very reassuring.

Finally, the fiscal sustainability delivery plan set out measures intended to have a positive impact on public finances, which included consideration of whether ADP reviews are operating as intended. Cabinet secretary, do you expect the review of ADP reviews to identify any potential savings? How will that be balanced with ensuring that the principles set out in the social security legislation will still be applied and adhered to?

Thank you.

Do our other witnesses agree that there is no way to achieve parity without the extension of voting rights?