Organisations have flagged the issue of the costs of implementing the bill. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency raised concerns that the financial memorandum underestimates the costs that it might have to bear, and NatureScot questioned whether it would need enforcement powers extended to it so that it could work with SEPA in relation to protected sites or ecosystems. We also received evidence from West Lothian Council that it lacks resources in relation to monitoring issues, breaches of planning conditions and situations where local authorities are the first responder to a local event.

Do you have any comment on the need to ensure that there is further investment in public sector organisations so that they can implement the legislation?

A response from the Government on that is important, because different organisations have raised that concern. The other issue that has been mentioned by several organisations is that they are concerned that stronger enforcement of existing law would be as important as creating an ecocide law on top of existing law. There are also concerns about having the legal tools and the resources. Cabinet secretary, you just said that this is a new piece of legislation so it is not for you to address, but concerns have been raised that are not—

That has come up in evidence.

I want to ask about vicarious liability and focus particularly on companies. The threshold for liability in the bill requires intent or recklessness for the main offence, and some of the evidence that the committee got suggested that that was too high a threshold, because of the difficulty of proving intent or recklessness and because, in reality, such offences, especially when committed by big companies, might be more likely to result from negligence or poor governance. I am thinking about work carried out by a company or a subcontracted company. What is the Scottish Government’s view on the appropriate threshold of liability for the main offence in the bill? Would a lower threshold be appropriate?

There is a concern that ecocide could have been committed but that it would be hard to hold anyone to account for it, because of the threshold.

We have been talking about the section 40 offence in the 2014 act. You would prefer this legislation to amending the section 40 offence in the 2014 act—

SEPA questioned the costs that are in the financial memorandum on leading on investigating an ecocide event. Other organisations, such as NatureScot, have key environmental protection roles. Section 9 will expand enforcement powers. Do we need to enable other authorities to have enforcement powers?

You cut me off before the second half of the question. Yes, this is new legislation, but I put on the record that we have heard concerns from some organisations that they are challenged financially to implement the existing legislation. We heard in previous evidence that there has been a doubling of public complaints but the number of prosecutions has significantly declined. Is there an issue with existing law that needs attention as well as the consideration of ecocide? The two issues are linked. That has been suggested to us by different organisations.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes. It is not clear whether my vote has been lodged.

Like the previous two speakers, I want to respond to the concerns that the committee raised at stage 1 but also those that were raised by a raft of stakeholders who got in touch because they were worried about unintended consequences from this section of the bill, which provides ministers with the wide-ranging power to modify key environmental protections. I want to try to reintroduce protections into the bill.

First, I thank the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management for its support in crafting the amendments, which have four clear aims for improving the bill: greater clarity and precision in drafting, ensuring that the legislation is easier to interpret and aligned with the structure elsewhere in the bill; a clear non-regression guarantee that requires ministers to confirm that any changes do not weaken existing environmental protections, a safeguard that is in line with Scottish environmental ambitions and international obligations; stronger alignment with our duties under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994; and ensuring that modifications respect the management objectives of the UK site network and the conservation needs of environmentally important habitats.

The key issue of enhanced parliamentary oversight has already been mentioned this morning, and I noticed reference to a ministerial statement being required. My ambition is to strengthen the bill, and there are different ways of doing that.

My amendment 5 is about clarity and precision, strengthening accountability and improving the consistency of drafting across the bill.

My amendment 6 is a generic non-regression safeguard for any regulations that are made under part 2. As has already been said, we have nature and climate crises and we need to address them both, but we also need safeguarding standards, and amendment 6 seeks to close a loophole and reinforce public trust. Environmental law should be thinking ahead, not looking backwards. We need the bill to align with Scotland’s wider commitments on climate and environmental ambitions and not to erode them by making technical changes.

My amendment 7 would make sure that, when the Scottish ministers were considering regulations, they would think about how any modification or restatement conformed with their duties in relation to the UK site network, under the habitats regulations. Again, I want to make sure that there is consistent application in line with existing statutory duties when looking at the conservation of European sites in Scotland and no undermining of the management and protection of those critical habitats. Amendment 7 is therefore about protecting the integrity of the UK site network by not allowing minor technical changes to have a big impact, as well as about strengthening environmental leadership and embedding accountability in the bill.

It was interesting to hear Alasdair Allan’s speech in favour of his amendments. My version, which is set out in my amendment 8, is about limiting ministerial discretion, enhancing democratic oversight and preventing ministers from bypassing proper parliamentary scrutiny. As drafted, the bill definitely risks allowing significant changes to be made with only procedural approval. My amendment would ensure that powers could not be exercised without a full, proper legislative debate and would avoid authority being expanded without accountability. The list of provisions that my amendment 8 would remove includes serious matters such as arrest powers, search powers and fees, which should not slide through under secondary legislation. Again, it is a matter of power.

My amendment 9 would remove section 3(e)—stakeholders raised many concerns about it at stage 1—in order to tighten the scope of ministerial powers, prevent overreach, focus on genuine policy purposes and prevent technical tidying up being done by the back door to weaken or dilute environmental standards and safeguards.

My amendment 10 is, again, about narrowing ministerial powers. The phrase

“to improve or simplify the operation of the law”

is vague and could lead to wide-ranging changes.