Chamber and committees

Will Jamie Hepburn take an intervention?

I was interested to hear what Stuart McMillan said and I commend him for standing up for his constituents. However, we are hearing from the Government front bench that it is not about the money, while we are hearing from the back benches that it is about the money. The Scottish Government needs to regroup and make up its mind, because what is happening feels like gaslighting of our firefighters and all the support staff in the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

I am proud to speak in this debate, which has been secured by Scottish Labour. I am disgusted that the Scottish Government is not supporting our motion. Instead, it has brought to the chamber an amendment that deletes our motion in its entirety and airbrushes out more than a decade of underfunding.

To recap, I note that, in 2023, after that decade of underfunding, FBU Scotland launched the cuts leave scars campaign. We have all been listening to our communities, but we are not just defending our own patches—we want to get this right for the whole of Scotland. It is not about pitting one community against another. However, I feel that the minister has come to the chamber and gaslit not just the members who are here, but also the firefighters in the gallery and people across the country by saying that any reduction in fire crews has been about reducing duplication of services. I hope that that suggestion will be corrected in her closing speech and that we will find out whether the minister agrees with Stuart McMillan.

Like Richard Leonard, I have been spending time in Cumbernauld, Hamilton and right across Lanarkshire and Central Scotland and listening to our communities and our firefighters. Richard Leonard made a point about the second appliance in Hamilton. We were told to trust in the process and that the arrangement was temporary, which is why there was no need for statutory consultation. We were told not to talk down the Scottish Government with regard to the issue. However, I have to say that people no longer trust the Scottish Government when it comes to the future of Scotland’s fire and rescue service. People in Hamilton do not trust what they hear. Why should people in Cumbernauld or anywhere else trust the Scottish Government?

At the public meeting in Cumbernauld—which was also attended by Jamie Hepburn, who heard the same testimony that I did—a woman who had been sitting quietly at the back of the room got to her feet and said to the top table, the politicians and everyone who was gathered there that her sister and her sister’s children had died in a tragic house fire. She made the same plea to decision makers that we are making.

This issue is about people and our communities, and it is about building resilience for the future. If we believe the science, if we watch the news and if we see the wildfires and the impact of floods and storms, we know that we need to act. Our firefighters do more than deal with house fires and other emergencies, and we have to give them the right equipment. I recently visited the national training centre in Cambuslang, and firefighters there told me that they have examples of out-of-date kit that cannot be used in emergency situations. There are many concerns about health and safety, and I pay tribute to Mercedes Villalba and Maggie Chapman for the work that they have done on that issue.

I ask the minister to please think again. She must not dismiss the Labour motion out of hand because of politics. We cannot go on cutting the service to the bone. It will risk lives. The cuts leave scars campaign tells us that, but tonight I am thinking about that sister—that aunt—who said that her family had been wiped out in a fire.

If the minister does not show some political leadership and deal with the reality, I fear for the future. I urge all colleagues to back the motion tonight.

I welcome that update. Residents in Lanarkshire are in favour of more action to make public transport more affordable and accessible, but they do not favour proposals by the Scottish National Party Glasgow City Council to introduce a charge for drivers visiting the city. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that that would be the wrong policy direction? Will she and the Government accelerate plans to boost transport and connectivity investment to support people in Lanarkshire, not punish them?

Thank you for the opportunity, convener. I also thank our witnesses. It has been encouraging to hear the broad support for the principles of the bill. Many of the points that have been raised relate to matters to which I gave careful consideration when thinking about drafting options. I am struck by the discussion and the questions around how we get the wording and the terms correct and achieve proportionality in relation to culpability, liability and the defence of necessity.

I am also encouraged by the Scottish Government’s memorandum to the committee—I hope that the witnesses have had a chance to look at it. It might allay some of my colleague Kevin Stewart’s fears about the timing of the bill, although I have been reminded that a number of bills were completed in the final week of the previous session of Parliament. We still have quite a bit of time in hand.

As for what stage 2 amendments could look like, you have been working on some suggested wording, Dr Shivali Fifield, and it would be good to see that. I am certainly open to discussing amendments.

On the issue of responsibility should an ecocide crime occur, I am sympathetic to the concerns about undue pressure on workers and the risk of coercion. I guess, Dr Fifield, that you are saying that responsibility could be shoved down to workers while people at the top of an organisation try to get off scot free. How could the bill and the communications around it raise everyone’s awareness of taking responsibility, so that we can achieve the aims of the bill, which are about preventing the harm of ecocide from occurring in the first place?

I am keen to hear from Dr Fifield, but it would be helpful to hear if anyone else has a comment on that.

I have a brief question for Elspeth Macdonald. I know that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation is opposed to the bill, and that has been your position from the very beginning and throughout the early consultation and development of the proposals. I am therefore guessing that you would never come to the Parliament to support an ecocide bill.

Earlier this morning, we heard from a witness about major oil disasters such as the MV Braer, although we are not saying that that is an example of an ecocide crime because the law did not exist at the time. Could you say something about the potential impact on your members of widespread pollution and disruption that could happen in the future? What could that do to a business such as those that your members conduct?

Would anyone like to add to that?

I will make this the final question because I am also keen to hear from the second panel of witnesses. We know that the EU environmental crime directive has become quite well established and that it will come fully into effect for member states in May next year. What risks might there be if Scotland does not criminalise ecocide? What might be the attitude in the EU and other jurisdictions to doing business with Scotland if we do not keep pace on the matter?

Sue, can you respond first?

You have rightly highlighted the importance of food production and food security. The Nature Friendly Farming Network, which represents some farmers, supports an ecocide law because it wants greater protection for soils, wildlife, forests and biodiversity. Do you recognise that ecocide law is coming into force in other countries because of the benefits that it can have for farmers and food producers, who can also be the victims of ecocide-level crime?

Thank you for your evidence. I am open to listening.

My final question is primarily for Professor Parsons, but Catherine McWilliam is welcome to contribute, too. Under the terms of the bill as drafted, Professor Parsons, as a Scottish Water director, you could be culpable if there were an ecocide crime. I will not give any examples, but water companies have illegally discharged raw or untreated sewage into rivers and seas, which has caused significant damage and resulted in significant fines. What would an ecocide law mean in practice for directors such as you and for discussions in boardrooms such as that of Scottish Water? What practical difference would it make to how you approach governance, prevention, culture and behaviour throughout the organisation? How much internal discussion has there been in Scottish Water about its position on an ecocide law? Have the discussions gone beyond director level?

I will try to squeeze quite a lot in here. I am conscious of the time, and we have had some really good evidence today.

I will come to you first, Jonnie. I read NFU Scotland’s written submission to the committee with interest. I want to be clear about this in my mind, as some of what you have said today differs from some of the written comments that you made. In your written submission you say that NFU Scotland is

“broadly supportive of the overall aim of the Bill to criminalise the most serious forms of environmental harm.”

You go on to say that you

“understand that the Bill intends to fill a gap between existing environmental regulations and criminal law, similar to other Ecocide legislation found across other countries, and acts as a deterrent for the most egregious and reckless actions that could cause irreversible damage to ecosystems.”

You also say that

“The Bill will be unlikely to affect day-to-day operations of most agricultural businesses”

and that you

“are satisfied with the number of safeguards within the Bill,”

while calling for “clearer guidance”.

I just want to check, because the committee will look at written and oral evidence. Is there anything in your written evidence that you want to change or clarify?