���˿���

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?

I will take that. That is good news.

Thank you.

I just want to add briefly that this has been an important petition, and I thank the petitioner and the other stakeholders who contributed to our scrutiny of it. It is right that we write to the Scottish Government again for an update and some clarity, and I agree with Mark Ruskell’s points about the importance of keeping pace with the WHO guidelines. I am sure that, if there are opportunities in the time that we have left, the committee will ask suitable questions, but this should be an important issue for future committees in the next session of Parliament.