Here we go again. The Scottish parliament risks embarking on yet another exercise in legislative virtue signalling: the Labour MSP Monica Lennon’s emotively titled Ecocide Bill. The Scottish government is reportedly looking favourably on this legislation, which would make destroying the environment a criminal offence punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
Does this Bill open the door to criminal proceedings against operators in the North Sea?
Needless to say, destroying the environment – intentionally or recklessly – is already illegal under numerous statutes: the Environmental Protection Act, the Wildlife and Countryside Act, and the Climate Change Act, to name but three. But, like the ill-fated Named Person Act, the Gender Recognition Reform Bill or the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act, this Ecocide Bill is designed to ‘send a message’. That message being: damaging the environment is a really, very bad thing indeed and should be opposed by all right-thinking people.
Much like those earlier legislative missteps, the unintelligible Ecocide Bill, if it goes the distance, will repealed, ignored, or, most likely, ruled ultra vires – beyond the powers of the Scottish Parliament. I mean, is the UK government going to allow a Bill to be passed which could see energy ministers locked up for permitting oil drilling in the North Sea?
The proposed legislation refers to ‘widespread or long-term damage to the environment’ caused by ‘reckless disregard.’ That’s the kind of legal language that should alarm anyone who values clarity and due process. Who decides what counts as ‘long-term’? What constitutes ‘reckless’? In practice, this could mean anything from a catastrophic oil spill to a poorly thought-out land management policy – the very kind the Scottish government has been presiding over for years.
Consider the environmental degradation caused by the mismanagement of Scotland’s peatlands, inappropriate tree planting, and inadequate management of deer herds. Road-building could also be construed as damaging to the environment. Government-regulated fish farms pollute marine ecosystems. If ecocide is defined by damage and recklessness, then who better to stand in the dock than the very ministers who allowed these practices to continue?
This Bill, like the doomed Gender Recognition Reform Bill, will almost certainly be unworkable. The Gender Bill, passed overwhelmingly by the Scottish Parliament in 2022, was blocked by Westminster under Section 35 of the Scotland Act – not because of transphobia, but because it clashed with UK-wide equality legislation. The Ecocide Bill is another exercise in unworkable legislation that might well end up in court.
This kind of symbolic lawmaking undermines the public’s trust in parliament. When laws are passed to express values, the law ceases to be a tool for justice and becomes mere performance. That performance has a cost: confusion, inconsistency, and the potential criminalisation of sectors that are already heavily regulated and vital to the economy.
Scotland still relies largely on oil and gas for industry, transport and domestic heating. Does this Bill open the door to criminal proceedings against operators in the North Sea? Or against local authorities who approve developments later found to impact biodiversity – such as the controversial Flamingo Land development on Loch Lomond? Vague definitions and sweeping moral judgments make for dangerous legal instruments, especially when applied to complex environmental realities.
Of course, none of this will matter to MSPs whose appetite for symbolic politics is matched only by their indifference to practical governance. As long as the right buzzwords are uttered – ‘justice’, ‘climate’, ‘future generations’ – the substance of policy can remain nebulous. But Scotland doesn’t need more moralistic posturing. It needs real, enforceable environmental protections grounded in science, not slogans.
Comments