Chamber and committees

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the changes would have to be so substantial that it would only be right for the committee to take more evidence on what the amendments could do to the bill?

To ask the Scottish Government whether the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy will engage with community groups affected by new energy projects now that she is no longer responsible for energy consent decisions. (S6O-05476)

My constituents are at their wits’ end. For months, the Government has refused to meet community groups that are seeing their communities trashed by pylons, battery storage and substations, but it is happy enough to meet companies such as Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. Now, we learn that the ability to submit comments to the energy consents unit by email has been stripped away. That is a cynical manipulation of the planning process and an attempt to shut down my constituents. Taking that ability away is not making the process easier, so will the cabinet secretary commit to allowing constituents to email their comments to the ECU, so that their voices can be heard?

We have reached the crunch time of our parliamentary session, when bills such as the one that we are debating simply do not have the time and space to be debated properly and implemented correctly.

I pay tribute to the member in charge for her tireless work in the area. I have enjoyed the conversations that we have had in and outwith committee, so I thank Monica Lennon for that.

Many people in the north-east will pin their hopes on the bill when they see the environmental damage planned by companies such as Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. I thought that the bill would stop that damage and that I would vote for the bill. Such projects cause damage on a huge scale. However, the more evidence I heard, the more I came to the conclusion that the bill would not prevent them. On the example of substations, who would be liable? Who would be responsible? Would it be companies such as SSEN or, if they had planning permission, would it be the planning authority? Would it be the councillors who granted the planning permission? Would it be the Scottish Government, which set the planning framework? I do not feel that those questions were answered.

At committee, we wrestled with the question of permitted actions, and I do not think that we had time to get to the bottom of it. The committee’s report on the bill raises the issue of the clarity of definitions of key terms in the bill. Terms such as “widespread” and “long-term” are insufficiently robust. The committee also felt that the approach to those who would be liable for ecocide was too narrow, and there were concerns about incompatibility with the ECHR.

As a member of the committee and having heard all the evidence, I agree that the bill is not in a place whereby we can take it beyond stage 1. Laws that we already have in place could be amended to create an ecocide offence. For example, amending section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 would work better. The fact that we are a Parliament that can make new laws does not mean that we should necessarily pass new legislation. As parliamentarians, we have the important tasks of keeping our legislation and laws up to date and relevant while keeping things relatively simple.

I am genuinely surprised that the Government, having read the committee’s report, has chosen to ignore it and support the bill. If the bill is agreed to at stage 1 today, we will, as a committee, have to take more evidence on it. Significant amendments will be required, and we have only 21 sitting days of the current session left.

I absolutely trust that Monica Lennon would not waste any parliamentary time, but we have to respect the deadlines and timescales that are set out in our standing orders. The more quickly stage 2 amendments are lodged, the more quickly we will be able to start taking evidence on their impact. However, with only 21 sitting days of the session left, I feel that the committee is already trying to do too much, and I do not think that we will be able to do the bill justice.

The bill seeks to introduce unlimited fines and a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, so Parliament has to get it right. It has to be good law, and it is for that reason that, regrettably, I cannot support the bill at stage 1. I feel that it is severely flawed, through no fault of the member in charge of it, and the evidence that we took during the committee’s evidence sessions highlighted those flaws. The best route would be a review of the existing penalties, to be carried out in the next session of Parliament. I hope that I and Monica Lennon will both be back here in that session, so that we can get on with that.

14:48

To ask the Scottish Government whether the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy will engage with community groups affected by new energy projects now that she is no longer responsible for energy consent decisions. (S6O-05476)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the changes would have to be so substantial that it would only be right for the committee to take more evidence on what the amendments could do to the bill?

We have reached the crunch time of our parliamentary session, when bills such as the one that we are debating simply do not have the time and space to be debated properly and implemented correctly.

I pay tribute to the member in charge for her tireless work in the area. I have enjoyed the conversations that we have had in and outwith committee, so I thank Monica Lennon for that.

Many people in the north-east will pin their hopes on the bill when they see the environmental damage planned by companies such as Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. I thought that the bill would stop that damage and that I would vote for the bill. Such projects cause damage on a huge scale. However, the more evidence I heard, the more I came to the conclusion that the bill would not prevent them. On the example of substations, who would be liable? Who would be responsible? Would it be companies such as SSEN or, if they had planning permission, would it be the planning authority? Would it be the councillors who granted the planning permission? Would it be the Scottish Government, which set the planning framework? I do not feel that those questions were answered.

At committee, we wrestled with the question of permitted actions, and I do not think that we had time to get to the bottom of it. The committee’s report on the bill raises the issue of the clarity of definitions of key terms in the bill. Terms such as “widespread” and “long-term” are insufficiently robust. The committee also felt that the approach to those who would be liable for ecocide was too narrow, and there were concerns about incompatibility with the ECHR.

As a member of the committee and having heard all the evidence, I agree that the bill is not in a place whereby we can take it beyond stage 1. Laws that we already have in place could be amended to create an ecocide offence. For example, amending section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 would work better. The fact that we are a Parliament that can make new laws does not mean that we should necessarily pass new legislation. As parliamentarians, we have the important tasks of keeping our legislation and laws up to date and relevant while keeping things relatively simple.

I am genuinely surprised that the Government, having read the committee’s report, has chosen to ignore it and support the bill. If the bill is agreed to at stage 1 today, we will, as a committee, have to take more evidence on it. Significant amendments will be required, and we have only 21 sitting days of the current session left.

My constituents are at their wits’ end. For months, the Government has refused to meet community groups that are seeing their communities trashed by pylons, battery storage and substations, but it is happy enough to meet companies such as Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks. Now, we learn that the ability to submit comments to the energy consents unit by email has been stripped away. That is a cynical manipulation of the planning process and an attempt to shut down my constituents. Taking that ability away is not making the process easier, so will the cabinet secretary commit to allowing constituents to email their comments to the ECU, so that their voices can be heard?

I absolutely trust that Monica Lennon would not waste any parliamentary time, but we have to respect the deadlines and timescales that are set out in our standing orders. The more quickly stage 2 amendments are lodged, the more quickly we will be able to start taking evidence on their impact. However, with only 21 sitting days of the session left, I feel that the committee is already trying to do too much, and I do not think that we will be able to do the bill justice.

The bill seeks to introduce unlimited fines and a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, so Parliament has to get it right. It has to be good law, and it is for that reason that, regrettably, I cannot support the bill at stage 1. I feel that it is severely flawed, through no fault of the member in charge of it, and the evidence that we took during the committee’s evidence sessions highlighted those flaws. The best route would be a review of the existing penalties, to be carried out in the next session of Parliament. I hope that I and Monica Lennon will both be back here in that session, so that we can get on with that.

14:48