Ecocide (Scotland) Bill - January 26 RevA - FINAL
Renfrewshire Council · 20 January 2026
Back to Planning and Climate Change Policy Board — 20 January 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
2 PUBLIC ___________________________________________________________________ To: Planning and Climate Change Policy Board On: 20 January 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ Report by: Chief Executive ___________________________________________________________________ Heading: Ecocide (Scotland) Bill ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Summary 1.1 The Scottish Parliament’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee are currently considering a Members Bill – the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill. 1.2 The Bill seeks to prevent mass environmental damage and destruction taking place in Scotland due to crimes of ecocide by putting in place strong punishments associated with this crime. 1.3 The three main objectives of the Bill are: ▪ To ensure that serious environmental offences are treated as criminal offences rather than regulatory breaches. ▪ To act as a deterrent to individuals and companies from committing serious environmental offences, by establishing a specific, stand-alone offence with significant penalties. ▪ To ensure that domestic legislation maintains alignment with the EU, specifically referencing the EU Environmental Crime Directive. ___________________________________________________________________ 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended that the Board: ▪ Note that correspondence was received inviting us to make comment on the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill.
Page 2
3 PUBLIC ▪ Note that officers reviewed the proposed Bill in its current state and prepared a response for submission to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. ▪ Note the response [attached to this report], which was issued to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. _________________________________________________________ 3. Background 3.1 The Ecocide (Scotland) Bill is a Member’s Bill which was introduced by Monica Lennon MSP. The Bill is currently being scrutinised by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. 3.2 The Bill seeks to prevent mass environmental damage and destruction taking place in Scotland due to the crimes of ecocide by putting in place strong punishments associated with this crime. 3.3 The Bill defines ecocide as causing severe environmental harm in such a way that is either reckless or intentional. Severe is defined as environmental harm that has serious adverse effects and is either ‘widespread’ or ‘long term’. 3.4 The three main objectives of the Bill are as follows: ▪ To ensure that serious environmental offences are treated as criminal offences rather than regulatory breaches. ▪ To act as a deterrent to individuals and companies from committing serious environmental offences, by establishing a specific, stand along offence with significant penalties. ▪ To ensure that domestic legislation maintains alignment with the EU, specifically referencing the EU Environmental Crime Directive. 3.5 The Bill proposes a maximum penalty of a custodial sentence of up to twenty years and an unlimited fine for individuals (and an unlimited fine in the case of an organisation). 3.6 The Bill also proposes that individuals and organisation may be liable for an offence of ecocide and sets out circumstances where responsible individuals of organisations may also be liable. 3.7 It should be noted that the Bill does not provide a defence or exemption where harm is caused by activities that have been consented by a public authority such as planning permission. There is also no exemption provided for a planning authority (or other regulatory body) who granted consent. 3.8 In light of the above it should be noted that the Bill, as currently written, places criminal liability on those consenting developments including officers who may be utilising delegated authority or Elected Members determining planning applications at a Council Board.
Page 3
4 PUBLIC ___________________________________________________________________ 4. Next Steps 4.1 Officers have reviewed the Bill in its current format and submitted a response to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee in advance of the deadline of 28 November 2025. A copy of the response is detailed in Appendix 1 to this report. 4.2 Members will be aware a Briefing Note and draft response was circulated prior to the submission of the response being issued. 4.3 Unfortunately, given the deadline and the timetable for the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board (January 2026), it was not possible to present the response for formal approval prior to submission. 4.4 In light of the above, the response submitted was undertaken following liaison with the Convenor and indeed a copy of the response being shared with all Board members. __________________________________________________________________ Implications of the Report 1. Financial – None. 2. HR & Organisational Development – None 3. Community/Council Planning – None. 4. Legal – Should the Bill proceed it is likely there may be legal implications relating to aspects of any such Bill. 5. Property/Assets – None. 6. Information Technology – None. 7. Equality & Human Rights - The Recommendations contained within this report have been assessed in relation to their impact on equalities and human rights. No negative impacts on equality groups or potential for infringement of individuals’ human rights have been identified arising from the recommendations contained in the report 8. Health & Safety – None. 9. Procurement – None. 10. Risk – None. 11. Privacy Impact – None. 12. Cosla Policy Position – None.
Page 4
5 PUBLIC 13. Climate Risk – None. Author: David Love, Chief Planning Officer. Tel: 07483410182; Email: david.love@renfrewshire.gov.uk
Page 5
Chief Executive: Alan Russell CPFA Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley, PA1 1WB www.renfrewshire.gov.uk OFFICIAL Edward Mountain MSP Convenor Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh EH99 1SP Sent via email to netzero.committee@parliament.scot Dear Sir, Ecocide (Scotland) Bill Further to your letter dated 11 November 2025 which was sent to all Scottish Local Authorities I write to provide comments from a Renfrewshire perspective. In this regard I will provide comments in respect of the topics highlighted in your letter. Consented or licensed activities It is submitted that any Bill should provide relevant exemptions in circumstances where planning permission or other relevant permissions or licences have been granted. In addition, any Bill must provide relevant exemptions to criminal liability to those involved in the granting of planning permission or other relevant permissions or licences. Any future Bill must be explicit in detailing the circumstances in which individuals or organisations, including local authorities and their Elected Members and staff, may be exposed to criminal liability. Decision-making and liability The possibility of criminal prosecution could influence the approach of the planning authority and put the ‘plan led system’ at risk. The possibility of a criminal prosecution even where the charge relates to a site identified for development within the Local Development Plan (LDP) is likely to change the approach and indeed significantly change how planning decisions are reached given the potential financial risks which the local authority may face should it be found guilty of environmental ecocide and indeed the risks to individuals who may be involved in the consenting process. The Bill is likely to have a number of impacts on the determination of planning applications and thus impact the wider planning system: ▪ Officers may be more inclined to decline to use delegated authority where there is a fear of a future criminal charge. This is likely to slow the determination of planning applications and result in more applications being considered by board/committee. ▪ Elected Members on the board/committee may be more inclined to refuse applications where there is a fear of a future criminal charge. This is likely to slow the determination of planning applications and result in more applications being considered by the DPEA. ▪ Elected Members may not be willing to serve on the planning board/committee for fear of being involved any a decision which may later be the subject to criminal charge. My Ref: 281125-Ecocide Contact: David Love Telephone: 07483410182 e-mail: david.love@renfrewshire.gov.uk Date: 28 November 2025 APPENDIX 1: Response to Ecocide (Scotland) Bill
Page 6
Chief Executive: Alan Russell CPFA Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley, PA1 1WB www.renfrewshire.gov.uk OFFICIAL In the event that an application is determined by the DPEA or Scottish Ministers will the relevant Minister or indeed the First Minister be subject to criminal charge and the subsequent sentence should they be found guilty? It is submitted that there is significant concern in respect of the Bill and how it would impact the consideration and determination of planning applications and indeed those involved in such processes. Furthermore, we would also note concern in relation to what impact the Bill would have on the wider planning system, the lack of certainty which would be created and indeed the impact on the delivery of future development which may be required to deliver key infrastructure or indeed help respond to the ongoing housing emergency. Threshold of harm The thresholds outlined in the Bill are not considered to be sufficiently clear and workable in the context of planning assessments. The Bill fails to consider the context in which the ‘severe environmental harm’ has taken place. For instance, it could be argued that severe environmental harm could occur as a result of the clearance of a greenfield site to enable future development to take place, while it could also be argued that the removal of a single tree from a homeowners garden could result in ‘severe environmental harm’. It is submitted any defined thresholds require to consider the context in which the ‘harm’ is taking place. In addition, we would raise concern with how ‘severe environmental harm’ is considered in respect of a development which has been the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). How would ‘severe environmental harm’ be considered by an EIA and could mitigation be implemented to overcome such identified harm? Furthermore, would amendments be required to National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) in order to ensure that ‘severe environmental harm’ forms part of planning considerations? It is submitted that any Bill would require to include clearly defined thresholds and provide greater clarity how these would be applied in the consideration of planning applications against the development plan and also where a development is supported by an EIA report. Cumulative impacts and course of conduct It is not clear from a planning perspective how the Bill might apply to incremental harm. Further detail and clarification would be required especially if the site in question is subject to multiple planning applications over a period of time. In addition, thought should be given to how a large development site which is developed in a phased manner would be considered against the terms of the Bill. An example would be a large development site which benefits from a masterplan approved as part of planning permission in principle and is thereafter subject to multiple applications for the approval of matters specified in condition (AMSC). Would such a phased approach and multiple AMSC applications be considered to cause cumulative harm? It should also be noted that in such circumstances the development in question may have been subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment as part of the application for planning permission in principle. Enforcement and investigation In the event that the Bill will provide enforcement powers to local authorities to investigate ecocide, we would note concern with such arrangements. Local authorities are likely to have been involved in the consenting process relating to planning or other relevant permissions and in this regard any investigation would create a conflict given that those providing consent could also be criminal liable for any ecocide event. It is our opinion that should the Bill proceed in its current form local authorities would be unable to act as an enforcing authority.
Page 7
Chief Executive: Alan Russell CPFA Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley, PA1 1WB www.renfrewshire.gov.uk OFFICIAL Notwithstanding the above we would also raise concern with the inclusion of local authorities as an enforcing authority without any detail as to how an extension of such powers would be funded. Local authorities are already operating under significant financial pressures and in this regard should further powers be extended to local authorities financial assurances would be required to demonstrate how additional expectations in respect of enforcement matters would be funded in the short, medium and long term. I trust the above comments are useful in the consideration of the Bill in question however we would welcome the opportunity to provide further comments as the bill progresses. Yours faithfully, David Love Chief Planning Officer Renfrewshire Council