As I said, our response to the recommendation to consider regulation 15 of the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) Regulations 2002 was published on 24 November. From memory, I think that it is Siobhian Brown who is dealing with that. I would need to defer to my colleagues about the timing beyond that point.

Yes, I will.

I am pleased that Mark Ruskell has drawn attention to the excellent work that is being done across the whole of Scotland to develop nature networks. However, I must point out that nature networks are currently identified as a key outcome in our Scottish biodiversity strategy, and that, under section 2 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, we are already required to report on implementation of that strategy every three years. In addition, the templates for public bodies to report on compliance with the biodiversity duty were updated in 2023 to ensure that they referred specifically to nature networks.

To support public bodies, and local authorities in particular, NatureScot has developed a nature networks toolbox, which contains a wide range of information, including detail on many of the topics that are referred to in amendment 76, such as sources of public and private financing. I would prefer us to focus our resource on helping our local authorities and national parks to deliver nature networks across Scotland, rather than on compiling a report that would duplicate the information that is already provided in our report on the implementation of the biodiversity strategy. A requirement to produce such a report would add an unnecessary administrative burden that would take away from action. Therefore, I do not think that amendment 76 is necessary, and, on that basis, I ask Mr Ruskell not to press it.

On amendment 77, our land managers have a hugely important role to play in helping to tackle the nature and climate crisis, and I recognise the good work that they are already doing. Our biodiversity strategy and delivery plan already recognise the importance of nature networks and identify a range of actions to expand and enhance ecological connectivity across Scotland. The Scottish ministers will be able to set out their objectives for nature networks and to report on progress on them through the Scottish biodiversity strategy reporting mechanisms.

The Government has already embedded nature networks in our national planning framework and is providing significant support and assistance to local authorities and other delivery bodies. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 requires the Scottish ministers to produce a land use strategy to ensure that they give due consideration to the need for and delivery of sustainable land use. The recent consultation on the fourth land use strategy focused on the role of integrated land use in achieving a balance across the multiple demands that are placed on Scotland’s land. The consultation responses did not suggest that action on nature networks similar to that which is proposed in Mark Ruskell’s amendment was necessary.

Nature networks and wider ecological connectivity are key parts of the complex landscape of sustainable land use, but it is essential that they are integrated alongside other elements, such as sustainable food production, forestry, peatland restoration, energy and housing. The 2009 act requires the land use strategy to consider an integrated and balanced range of land uses. The introduction in the bill of a specific reference to one land use would shift the focus away from the integrated approach that stakeholders strongly supported in the recent strategy consultation.

For those reasons, I do not support amendment 77. I think that it would unhelpfully alter the carefully balanced approach to sustainable land use that is taken in our land use strategy. Therefore, I encourage Mark Ruskell not to move it, and, failing that, I ask members not to support it.

I guess that proceeding an indictment is the available option if a higher fine is what would be sufficient for the crime that has been committed. That is why I have set out our position in the way that I have. I absolutely recognise and sympathise with the fact that, as you mentioned in relation to previous amendments, people have gone to court and had to pay a lesser fine. In this case, however, the option of an indictment, which can lead to an unlimited fine, is available as well. I understand why you lodged amendment 299, but I hope that I have been able to set out that the level is not limited to £40,000, because an unlimited fine is possible.

Amendment 300, which is also in the name of Ross Greer, would introduce a requirement on the Scottish ministers to amend section 40 of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 to

“replicate the penalties in EU Directive 2024/1203”

and set

“maximum levels of fines as a percentage of the total worldwide turnover”.

There are a couple of issues with the amendment. First, I am concerned that it is not entirely clear what is meant by “replicate the penalties”. To see why that is the case, we need to consider the nature of the EU environmental crime directive, which places requirements on member states to introduce criminal sanctions for causing environmental harm of different scales for a wide range of activities.

In our transposition of the earlier environmental crime directive, which was conducted while we were still in the EU through sectoral environmental regulation of different activities, the section 40 offence was not included. The new directive introduced a requirement for higher levels of sanction for qualified offences for certain activities where environmental damage is particularly severe and long lasting. That is described in the preamble to the directive as “damage equivalent to ecocide”. There is no offence in the directive that is directly comparable to section 40 of the 2014 act.

Members will be aware that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee is considering Monica Lennon’s Ecocide (Scotland) Bill at stage 1, and I have put on record my support for its general principles. That bill seeks to establish a new offence of ecocide with higher penalties—I believe that the proposition is to have unlimited penalties—that would apply to events that are more serious in nature than those covered by the section 40 offence. As such, amendment 300 would create uncertainty and confusion as the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill progresses.

I am on record as saying that, before I agreed to support the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill, I offered the option of an amendment to the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, but Monica Lennon has pressed forward and has given Parliament the opportunity to vote for the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill, albeit that there are issues with it and it needs to be tidied up at stage 2, should it get to that stage. That bill would bring us more into line with what is happening in the EU. The campaign for ecocide law across the whole world is gaining momentum, and Monica Lennon has given us an opportunity to consider that in a Scottish context.

I have not drafted that amendment yet. Obviously, I am waiting to see what happens with the progression of Ms Lennon’s bill, but our general thinking is that, because the bar for proving ecocide is rightly set very high, we will link the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 to the applicable section in the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill, so that there could be almost dual offences—I think that is the phrase for it. If a court felt that it could not prosecute under the ecocide law, because the bar was too high and the evidence did not support that, it could fall back on the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014.

I have not drafted that amendment, so I have not got the wording, but that is the general intention. We would not want a situation in which somebody brings a claim of ecocide and the whole court process is gone through but the case does not quite meet the bar, even though the evidence suggests that significant harm was caused. That is the reasoning behind the approach. Obviously, notwithstanding some of the issues with Ms Lennon’s bill that might have to be straightened out at stage 2, the eventual passing of an Ecocide (Scotland) Bill would provide sufficient leeway in terms of the sentence and the fines that might be associated with it.

Yes, but I will finish my comments on Ross Greer’s amendments.

One thing that we have been talking about with the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill is the polluter pays principle. Substantial or significant damage could cost an awful lot of money to repair, and we would not want that to fall solely on the public purse. That is all in consideration.

I can offer you an opportunity to chat the issue over with me and my officials, given the context that you have just provided. The Parliament might not support Ms Lennon’s bill, but there is still a situation that needs to be addressed, which could be done through the 2014 act. As I said, initially, I offered reform of the 2014 act as a solution, because it could be amended to include ecocide penalties. We are where we are, but I get your point, so I am happy to meet to talk that through further with my officials.

At the moment, there is not a directly comparable offence in the directive that Ross Greer is talking about that works with the 2014 act. The best thing that I can offer is a discussion with Ross, in the context of where we are with the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill and this bill. Maybe we can bottom it out through conversation with my officials, so we can see how we could address potential gaps. The timing is difficult, given where we are with Ms Lennon’s bill as we do not know when stage 2 will happen or whether the NZET Committee will agree to the bill.

On amendment 307, in the name of Douglas Lumsden, the Government is committed to ensuring that there is effective access to justice on any matters—not just environmental matters. In November 2024, the Government made a statement on the effectiveness of environmental governance arrangements, following a consultation and a report on those matters, as required by section 41 of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021. As well as the effectiveness of governance arrangements, the 2021 act required the report to cover whether the law in Scotland on access to justice and environmental matters is effective and sufficient.

The report considered various issues that have been identified in evidence gathering about access to justice in environmental matters, particularly with respect to the cost of access to court. The report also discussed the concerns that have been raised by the Aarhus convention compliance committee with respect to the cost of access to justice in environmental matters. It set out a number of measures that had been taken with respect to those costs and further steps that were under consideration.

Having fully considered the views that were raised in the consultation, the Government’s statement was clear that we could continue to work to improve access to justice in environmental matters and that we would carry out further engagement with stakeholders on our approach to environmental rights. We have also taken meaningful steps to address concerns about the cost to communities’ access to justice in environmental matters. For example, court fees for Aarhus cases in the Court of Session have been removed, the Scottish Civil Justice Council has strengthened protective expenses orders to improve confidentiality, and it is consulting on expanding those protections to the sheriff court and private nuisance claims.

It should also be remembered that environmental governance arrangements established by the 2021 act, along with the creation of the independent body, Environmental Standards in Scotland, provide the opportunity to individuals and communities to raise concerns about the effective implementation of environmental law. ESS has a simple online form for raising environmental concerns, and it is an alternative route—rather than a complex legal challenge—to resolving a concern. In addition, it enables communities to participate effectively in environmental decision making and enforcement, as a key part of the licensing and consenting systems. It is always preferable for community concerns to be taken account of in the design of proposed development or activity.

Therefore, although we support the principle of seeking to address the cost of access to justice in instances when a community has exhausted other means and regards it as necessary, practical considerations with regard to funding and interaction with existing legal aid provisions must be addressed. I assure the committee that those issues form part of the Government’s long-term, on-going work on legal aid reform. That is not in my portfolio, but the Government’s position is set out in the legal aid reform discussion paper that was published in February this year, and in our response to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee’s recommendation to consider regulation 15 of the Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) Regulations 2002, which was published on 24 November 2025.

On the basis that the Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that there is effective access to justice on environmental matters in Scotland, and of the work that has been done as a result of the recommendations of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee in relation to legal aid, I ask Mr Lumsden not to move amendment 307. If he does, I encourage members to vote against it.

Actually, I had finished—but it is up to you, convener.

Is that in relation to legal aid?