Chamber and committees

I am part of the cross-party group on food, and we are very aware of the big, important issues, such as the capturing of counterfeit vodka and the court case on the misrepresentation of tea.

You have addressed my next question, which was about collaborative working with the Food Standards Agency and others. What are your future priorities for food crime, and are they aligned with those of the Food Standards Agency?

It is helpful for us to understand that the code will seek to flesh out the scenarios, because we do not want to scenario plan today and think about different instances in which it could be applied. The information should be contained in the guidance and the code to give operators an understanding of how they should balance human rights and look at each situation before they come to conclusions.

Further changes could come forward when you are looking at the review mechanisms and processes.

Will the cabinet secretary advise how the Scottish Government is supporting the prioritisation of local Scottish food in public procurement? Does that include supporting investment in publicly owned or community-owned regional processing facilities and food hubs, which strengthen local food resilience and further community wealth building aspirations?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how its good food nation journey encourages local procurement, promotes local produce and reduces food miles. (S6O-05485)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how its good food nation journey encourages local procurement, promotes local produce and reduces food miles. (S6O-05485)

Will the cabinet secretary advise how the Scottish Government is supporting the prioritisation of local Scottish food in public procurement? Does that include supporting investment in publicly owned or community-owned regional processing facilities and food hubs, which strengthen local food resilience and further community wealth building aspirations?

I agree with my colleagues. We have fulfilled the petitioner’s request to look into the issue in depth. Given what is contained in the petition about the lack of a diagnosis and the consequences that that can have on somebody’s life, the next committee should have an on-going look at the issue. However, as I say, we have fulfilled the petitioner’s request.

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?