The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 2641 contributions
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 25 September 2025
Bob Doris
Budget time must be just around the corner because I think that is the first reference that we have heard to the finance secretary’s sofa. Well done to Mr Balfour for that.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Bob Doris
The Braer oil spill happened in 1993, so the current legislation supersedes that example, but I appreciate why it was given.
I am getting my head around an issue that it might be best for Mr Whittle to come in on. Section 40 of the 2014 act, which has been cited by Kevin Stewart, deals with significant environmental harm. In my briefing, I see that there are also the Environmental Liability (Scotland) Regulations 2009, which set out that companies and organisations must proactively take “preventive or remedial measures”. I am learning as I go along, so I am sure that there are other parts of the general legislative landscape that I am not aware of. The deputy convener’s question was whether there are any examples from the past decade or so in which the legislative framework has not been fit for purpose to deal with a significant environmental incident. We do not have clarity on that.
I want to ask Mr Whittle a second question, because I will not be coming back in due to time constraints. Who decides what piece of legislation to use when seeking legal recourse? If the bill goes on the statute book, lots of people will be keen to see it used. However, it might be more appropriate to use section 40 of the 2014 act or the 2009 regulations. I am conscious of setting a legal precedent that determines the bar for what ecocide actually is and it is such a significant threshold that is meant to be reached. Mr Whittle, could you give me some reassurances?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Bob Doris
Maybe I have picked up the previous evidence session wrong, and the point is about a lack of clarity rather than a flaw in the bill, but I wanted to draw that to your attention.
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Bob Doris
Could there be a situation in which the threshold for ecocide might be doubtful in relation to the law but the Crown Office and others want to see greater penalties than can be imposed under the 2014 act? That might mean that they seek a remedy using the new legislation so that greater penalties can be imposed, rather than because the incident meets the threshold for ecocide. Is that a danger, Mr Whittle?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Bob Doris
My point was not that we should ditch the 12 months; it is about having a bit of nuance and light and shade. Do you have examples of situations where a derogation would be reasonable, rather than ditching the period altogether?
Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Bob Doris
My question is on the exact same thing, but that is fine, because maybe it shows that there is something in that. I wonder whether 12 months is always a realistic recovery period. It must have been based on incidents or events that have already happened, but the natural cycle of things might mean that 18 to 24 months would give enough time for a robust and evidence-based recovery plan to be put in place, rather than having a cliff edge of 12 months. Does Jonnie Hall have any comments on that?
11:00Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 23 September 2025
Bob Doris
Again, because of time constraints, I will not explore that further.
I will turn to my final comment on the definition. This point does not mean that I disagree with the policy intent of any of this, but I think that there might be a need for clarity. I think that the witnesses on the previous panel pretty much all agreed that, if an individual left a barbecue in an open area and it led to a forest fire and there was significant damage, that would be seen as an ecocide event. However, we heard in the same evidence session that the policy intent is also to create a corporate offence at the very highest level.
A forest fire is an event at a very serious and high level, but that does not necessarily mean that it is a corporate offence. Is there a blurring around the intention of the bill? If we have an offence in relation to barbecue fires, and then a corporate offence at the highest level, they seem to rub up against each other a bit. I do not know whether you heard the previous evidence session, but do you have any comments on that?
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 18 September 2025
Bob Doris
That being the case, I can now thank the cabinet secretary for battling through the evidence sessions, and I thank her officials in both sessions, too.
I suspend the meeting to allow for a change of witnesses as we move to item 6.
09:33 Meeting suspended.Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 18 September 2025
Bob Doris
As this might be our final question, I will ensure that every witness gets the opportunity to put on the record the low-cost, high-impact suggestions that they want to see.
Social Justice and Social Security Committee
Meeting date: 18 September 2025
Bob Doris
Thank you, Fiona.
I thank all our witnesses for their helpful, focused and tight contributions, because we have landed within our timescale for completing the evidence session.
Next week, we will hear from the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice as part of our final pre-budget scrutiny evidence session.
10:38 Meeting continued in private until 11:10.