A Guide to the Scottish Parliament’s Ecocide Bill Consultation

Ecocide (Scotland) Bill

Consultation Response Guide

The Scottish Parliament’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee is currently running an online consultation on the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill proposed by Co-operative MSP Monica Lennon.

As co-operators concern for our communities is one of our priorities, concern for the environment is important. This ground breaking legislation seeks to make severe environmental harm a criminal offence. If passed, individuals and corporations found guilty of ecocide could face up to 20 years in prison and unlimited fines.

To help you take part, we have created this guide on how to respond to the consultation. We would advise doing this on a desktop computer, so you can:

Open the Scottish Government's consultation survey in one window
Keep this guide open in another window

When asked to explain your response: we strongly advise using your own words and speaking from your own experiences and observations. However, we will also provide bullet points to help you form your response, which you can use for inspiration.

The consultation contains 24 questions. You do not need to answer every question, and can answer as few or as many as you like. If you answer every question, it will take about 30 minutes to complete.

Ready? Click the button below to open the official consultation website in a new window, then come back here and click "Start" to begin!

Open the Consultation Website Start

Introduction

The first few pages of the survey are easy to fill in: they just ask you for some information about yourself such as what kind of response you are giving (as an individual), your name and email address, and if you are happy with your response being published. Simply fill in your details until you reach question 1, then hit next!

1.1: Do you support the overall aim of the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill to criminalise the most serious forms of environmental harm?

We answered: Yes

Q 2.1–2.3: Agreement and clarity on “severe”, “widespread”, “long-term”, and the recklessness/intention threshold.

We've provided some ideas here to get you started if you need help, but again please try to use your own words.

3.1. The Bill includes a defence of "necessity" where ecocide was committed to prevent greater harm (not including financial harm). Do you agree with this approach?

Suggested answer: Yes

3.2. Do you have any concerns about how this defence could be interpreted or applied?

Q 4.1–4.3: Support for holding individuals, organisations, and responsible individuals liable.

4.1. The Bill allows for individuals, organisations and specified senior individuals (e.g. directors or partners) of organisations to be held liable for ecocide. Do you support this approach?

Suggested answer: Yes

4.2. Are the provisions on individual and organisational culpability sufficiently clear and appropriate, including the definitions of who is a “responsible individual”?

Suggested answer: Yes

4.3 Are the provisions on vicarious liability clear and appropriate?
Suggested answer Yes

Suggested answer: Yes

Q 5.1–5.3: Appropriateness of penalties and the role of publicity orders.

Q 6.1–6.2: Enforcement capacity and resource needs.

7.1–7.3: Impacts on businesses, communities, and equality.

8.1: Alignment with international developments.

Q 9.1–9.2: On regular reporting and oversight mechanisms.

Q 10.1–10.2: Additional points to raise and potential improvements.

Thanks for filling out the consultation.

Promoted by Joe Fortune on behalf of the Co-operative Party, both at Unit 13, 83 Crampton Street, London, SE17 3BQ, United Kingdom. Co-operative Party Limited is a registered Society under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014. Registered no. 30027R.

Ecocide (Scotland) Bill

Consultation Response Guide

Introduction

Question 1

1.1: Do you support the overall aim of the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill to criminalise the most serious forms of environmental harm?

We answered: Yes

Question 2

Q 2.1–2.3: Agreement and clarity on “severe”, “widespread”, “long-term”, and the recklessness/intention threshold.

Question 3

3.1. The Bill includes a defence of "necessity" where ecocide was committed to prevent greater harm (not including financial harm). Do you agree with this approach?

Suggested answer: Yes

3.2. Do you have any concerns about how this defence could be interpreted or applied?

Suggested answer:

Q 4.1–4.3: Support for holding individuals, organisations, and responsible individuals liable.

Suggested answer:

Question 4

4.1. The Bill allows for individuals, organisations and specified senior individuals (e.g. directors or partners) of organisations to be held liable for ecocide. Do you support this approach?

Suggested answer: Yes

4.2. Are the provisions on individual and organisational culpability sufficiently clear and appropriate, including the definitions of who is a “responsible individual”?

Suggested answer: Yes

4.3 Are the provisions on vicarious liability clear and appropriate? Suggested answer Yes

Suggested answer: Yes

Question 5

Q 5.1–5.3: Appropriateness of penalties and the role of publicity orders.

Suggested answer:

Question 6

Q 6.1–6.2: Enforcement capacity and resource needs.

Suggested answer:

Question 7

7.1–7.3: Impacts on businesses, communities, and equality.

Suggested answer:

Question 8

8.1: Alignment with international developments.

Suggested answer:

Question 9

Q 9.1–9.2: On regular reporting and oversight mechanisms.

Suggested answer:

Final comments

Q 10.1–10.2: Additional points to raise and potential improvements.

Suggested answer:

You did it!

Thanks for filling out the consultation.

4.3 Are the provisions on vicarious liability clear and appropriate?
Suggested answer Yes