I apologise, but I have only four minutes.

That is important, because the potential impact of deterrence would have to be backed up by guidance and training for those involved in reporting instances and those involved in prosecutions. That would mean more joined-up work and adequate resources for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Environmental Standards Scotland, NatureScot, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the police.

I agree with committee colleagues that the bill needs to be amended, but the fact that work has already been done between both the member in charge of the bill and the cabinet secretary is important. Useful points were made about joined-up thinking during committee meetings. For example, it was suggested that there could be an alternative conviction provision to avoid a gap between existing legislation and new ecocide legislation. Therefore, it is important that we are already having constructive discussions.

More guidance for regulators on the definition of ecocide, such as ecological criteria, scientific indicators and practical examples, is important, because we need to ensure that those who exercise power and control in organisations are held to account. Issues such as contractor-subcontractor relationships also need to be flagged at the next stage.

I agree with what was said in the discussions that the committee had about the bill’s application to properly consented activities. Again, the concerns from key sectors will be addressed not only through amendments to the bill but through guidance from Government.

Although the committee members did not all agree that the bill should progress to stage 2, I do not think that we should kick it into touch. It will need work, but that is not an argument for our voting it down today.

14:52

Does the cabinet secretary accept that commuting by train is critical if we are to give people the choice not to use their cars? Will she focus on the issue of timescales, which affects not only trains from Fife to Edinburgh but those from the Borders to Edinburgh? Those key commuting links need extra capacity, and we must ensure that that is delivered as soon as possible.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I, too, thank Monica Lennon for her work on the bill and for introducing it in Parliament. I know just how much work is required to introduce a bill in our Parliament. I also thank the expert witnesses who gave evidence to the committee, the stakeholders and all our parliamentary staff.

As members who have read the committee’s stage 1 report will know, there are key issues that need to be considered in relation to the drafting of the bill and its potential impact. The bill would create a new crime and there would be consequences for intentional or reckless severe environmental destruction, with the court being able to impose an unlimited fine, a prison term of up to 20 years, a compensation order or a publicity order.

Monica Lennon has made the key argument that the European Union environmental crime directive will see EU states strengthening their legislation and increasing their penalties, and it is vital that we do not fall behind other countries but send a clear message that ecocide is not acceptable.

There were several key issues on which the committee took evidence that suggested that we need a joined-up approach to section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 if the bill is to be passed. There was clear support for increased penalties, and the fact that the cabinet secretary has been working with the member on key areas where the bill needs to be amended is important.

The cabinet secretary made an important point at committee when she said that she hoped that the bill would never have to be used, because it would meant that such a severe event had occurred. However, the fact that we would not want to use legislation does not mean that we should not have it in place, because the deterrent effect is important. Therefore, the comments made by witnesses to the committee that we need an “apex” to our environmental crime legislation are also right.

The key issue, which has already been mentioned, is that there is a striking lack of prosecutions and convictions under section 40 of the 2014 act. However, Professor Campbell Gemmell said that we should not assume that the lack of a section 40 prosecution does not mean a lack of environmental harm being caused, and he made the observation that the number of public complaints has doubled while the number of prosecutions has significantly declined. That needs to be considered.

Given that Berwick Bank has now been approved, what is the Scottish Government doing to work with the developer and local communities to reduce the project’s impact on seabirds, to deliver local manufacturing and job opportunities, and to enable links to community heat networks? I am happy to get a written update, but those are practical things that the cabinet secretary needs to be leading on.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Given that Berwick Bank has now been approved, what is the Scottish Government doing to work with the developer and local communities to reduce the project’s impact on seabirds, to deliver local manufacturing and job opportunities, and to enable links to community heat networks? I am happy to get a written update, but those are practical things that the cabinet secretary needs to be leading on.

I apologise, but I have only four minutes.

That is important, because the potential impact of deterrence would have to be backed up by guidance and training for those involved in reporting instances and those involved in prosecutions. That would mean more joined-up work and adequate resources for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Environmental Standards Scotland, NatureScot, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the police.

I agree with committee colleagues that the bill needs to be amended, but the fact that work has already been done between both the member in charge of the bill and the cabinet secretary is important. Useful points were made about joined-up thinking during committee meetings. For example, it was suggested that there could be an alternative conviction provision to avoid a gap between existing legislation and new ecocide legislation. Therefore, it is important that we are already having constructive discussions.

More guidance for regulators on the definition of ecocide, such as ecological criteria, scientific indicators and practical examples, is important, because we need to ensure that those who exercise power and control in organisations are held to account. Issues such as contractor-subcontractor relationships also need to be flagged at the next stage.

I agree with what was said in the discussions that the committee had about the bill’s application to properly consented activities. Again, the concerns from key sectors will be addressed not only through amendments to the bill but through guidance from Government.

Although the committee members did not all agree that the bill should progress to stage 2, I do not think that we should kick it into touch. It will need work, but that is not an argument for our voting it down today.

14:52

Does the cabinet secretary accept that commuting by train is critical if we are to give people the choice not to use their cars? Will she focus on the issue of timescales, which affects not only trains from Fife to Edinburgh but those from the Borders to Edinburgh? Those key commuting links need extra capacity, and we must ensure that that is delivered as soon as possible.

I, too, thank Monica Lennon for her work on the bill and for introducing it in Parliament. I know just how much work is required to introduce a bill in our Parliament. I also thank the expert witnesses who gave evidence to the committee, the stakeholders and all our parliamentary staff.

As members who have read the committee’s stage 1 report will know, there are key issues that need to be considered in relation to the drafting of the bill and its potential impact. The bill would create a new crime and there would be consequences for intentional or reckless severe environmental destruction, with the court being able to impose an unlimited fine, a prison term of up to 20 years, a compensation order or a publicity order.

Monica Lennon has made the key argument that the European Union environmental crime directive will see EU states strengthening their legislation and increasing their penalties, and it is vital that we do not fall behind other countries but send a clear message that ecocide is not acceptable.

There were several key issues on which the committee took evidence that suggested that we need a joined-up approach to section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 if the bill is to be passed. There was clear support for increased penalties, and the fact that the cabinet secretary has been working with the member on key areas where the bill needs to be amended is important.

The cabinet secretary made an important point at committee when she said that she hoped that the bill would never have to be used, because it would meant that such a severe event had occurred. However, the fact that we would not want to use legislation does not mean that we should not have it in place, because the deterrent effect is important. Therefore, the comments made by witnesses to the committee that we need an “apex” to our environmental crime legislation are also right.

The key issue, which has already been mentioned, is that there is a striking lack of prosecutions and convictions under section 40 of the 2014 act. However, Professor Campbell Gemmell said that we should not assume that the lack of a section 40 prosecution does not mean a lack of environmental harm being caused, and he made the observation that the number of public complaints has doubled while the number of prosecutions has significantly declined. That needs to be considered.