Thank you. Keep it snappy, convener.

Do the witnesses agree with the definition of ecocide? Is it clear to you what kind of and what level of environmental harms the bill is targeting, or do you think that that could be clearer? Who would like to kick off?

Thank you—everybody was quite succinct, which is really good.

Could you give us your views on whether the definition of ecocide in the bill should apply to environmental harm caused cumulatively, as a result of a course of conduct or on-going activity, versus a one-off single emergency-type incident? How would that impact on different types of industries and economic activity across the country? You have already mentioned some forms of economic activity that could be included. Do you want to expand on that?

I will reflect on that last comment by Jonnie Hall. If organisations—businesses, farmers or whatever—are complying with legislation, such as planning law or the conditions of a permit, why would they be liable, rather than the Government or the regulator, if that is the responsibility in terms of ecocide?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I tried to vote no, but it went as a yes. I just want to check that my vote is recorded properly.

Can I clarify? I initially voted yes, then I double-checked and did vote no, and it would not let me go from yes to no within the time of the vote. I think that it is important to log that. I did try to vote no.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I refreshed the app, and it would not let me vote. I would have voted yes.

I think that the committee’s report is a must-read for all MSPs. Although we lodged an amendment to the motion, Scottish Labour welcomes and notes the report, and recognises the range of recommendations that have been made on new and existing commissioners; on governance and accountability; on budget and audit issues; and on shared services.

The problem that we have with the motion is that, on the one hand, it says that

“the SPCB supported body landscape should not be expanded to include new advocacy-type SPCB supported bodies”,

but on the other hand, it goes on to state that new bodies should meet the justification and effectiveness test that is set out in paragraph 150 of the report. The key issue is the justification and effectiveness criteria, which should be used when the relevant parliamentary committee is considering proposals to establish a new commissioner.

I have followed the committee’s work both because it addresses the important issue of the growing landscape of commissioners and because, during this parliamentary session, I have been working on my own member’s bill, which is focused on accountability; on coherence in public bodies in relation to wellbeing and sustainable development; and on ensuring that the Scottish Government, our councils and the wider public sector are held to account for their impact, both now and in the future. In his speech earlier today, John Swinney referenced George Reid’s call for a sense of purpose, because “Today is tomorrow.”

Last year, I secured a debate to recognise the United Nations declaration on future generations. I argued that one of the most important things that we can do is to think about how we build a society in which people’s wellbeing and sustainable development are built into the actions of, and the policy and spending decisions made by, all our Government and public sector bodies in Scotland. To deliver on those principles, we need clear guidance, accountability and a focus on ensuring that they are not just warm words but actually delivered. Hence, I propose that there should be a commissioner with investigatory powers.

The report that we are debating references proposals for new commissioners and describes them as “advocacy” commissioners. I do not agree with that in relation to my proposed commissioner, and I was clear about that in my evidence to the committee. As Martin Whitfield acknowledged, yesterday, the Parliament established a new victims and witnesses commissioner—that, too, is listed as an advocacy commissioner. There have been questions about whether the powers of that new commissioner are actually sufficient.

I am glad that the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee acknowledges the positive contribution that has been made by existing commissioners and that they

“fulfil a vital function in safeguarding public trust, institutional integrity and democratic accountability”.

Although the report notes some overlap between them, the evidence was that

“each of the existing SPCB supported bodies provides a unique and necessary contribution.”

I will not because I am very tight for time—perhaps, if I have time later, I will.

The recommendations on induction and training in the next session of the Parliament are important because all the new MSPs and their staff will need to be aware of the work and remits of existing SPCB-supported bodies. Maybe we should send today’s Official Report to all our current colleagues too, because we have to get them interested in this.

The report makes an important recommendation that

“a parliamentary committee is given the specific responsibility for the accountability and scrutiny of SPCB supported bodies for a fixed period as a pilot exercise”

in session 7.

That will be an additional commitment in the already overstretched capacity of the SPCB and parliamentary committees, but it is clear that this is an on-going issue that is not going away. Delivering parliamentary accountability is critical to the effectiveness of how we work as a democracy.

The pilot scheme that is referenced in the motion must have clear metrics. What does accountability mean? How will we judge the effectiveness of scrutiny? What timescale will there be for feedback to the Parliament and for public reporting? It is critical that the Parliament hears the voices of service users, children, young people, marginalised individuals and those who are most affected by failures of oversight but who are not regularly enabled to be consulted. The pilot needs to be geographically inclusive, too.

In the criteria for establishing new bodies, making the most efficient use of resources is key. That is why I support the hub-and-spoke model and using existing public sector office space to make sure that we get the effectiveness that is needed. That aligns well with the work that I have been doing on my member’s bill on wellbeing and sustainable development.

The report makes an important and timely contribution to on-going efforts to make sure that our public sector operates with greater coherence, transparency and long-term accountability. We need to avoid duplication—that was an issue that I looked at in my bill and spoke to the Auditor General about. Clarity of roles is key, and a memorandum of understanding is a good way to avoid overlap—there is work that we could do in that regard.

I urge the Parliament to agree to our Scottish Labour amendment and to proceed with the recommendations on the pilot oversight committee in the next session, with clear metrics for that committee and the resources that are necessary to make it a success. Let us seize the moment, not only to tidy up structures but to make institutions and decision making fit for the future, transparent, effective and trusted.

I move amendment S6M-18936.1, to leave out from “, and agrees” to end.

We have fantastic advocacy groups, such as Stop Climate Chaos, which was lobbying us all today. Is it those groups or individual MSPs that the member thinks should be carrying out work around guidance and investigations into the Government, individual local authorities or the 131 public sector bodies?