Chamber and committees

I will speak to my amendment 61 and other amendments in the group.

Amendment 61 would require the code of practice to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure. Christine Grahame has proposed that, under the bill, the code of practice would not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, but the delegated powers memorandum explains that she took that approach as the scope of the powers in sections 1 and 5 is

“narrowed by provisions set out on the face of the Bill”,

and any other matters that are included by the Scottish ministers would be informed by their consultation exercise.

The delegated powers memorandum concluded:

“The Member considers that the core content of code will stand the test of time and that it is therefore appropriate to include it in this way. ... the substantial elements of the code will have been scrutinised by the Parliament during the passage of the Bill”.

However, my amendment 61 would make the code subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure.

In its stage 1 report, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee referred to section 37 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, stating that

“any animal welfare code ... must be laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Scottish Parliament before it can come into effect.”

The stage 1 report also referred to the stage 1 report that was produced by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, in which it concluded that the code of practice “should be subject to” parliamentary scrutiny, due to “the evidential link” between compliance with the code and

“the possible commission of an offence”

under section 6 of the bill. The DPLR Committee recommended that

“the code of practice should be subject to a parliamentary procedure”

and set out the arguments for using either the affirmative or the negative procedure. The argument that the committee saw as being in favour of the affirmative procedure was

“the evidential link of a failure to follow the code of practice to the possible commissioning of an offence; and ... the power for Ministers to revise the code after consultation. This would align the code with codes of practice made under the 2006 Act.”

Once again, I ask members to support my amendment, which would mean that the code of practice would have to be scrutinised by Parliament under the affirmative procedure. That would more closely align with the 2006 act by giving ministers the power to revise the code after consultation and would address the evidential link between failure to follow the code of practice and the potential for an offence to be committed.

I call Rhoda Grant to speak to amendments 72 and other amendments in the group.

The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 74 disagreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Section 7—Public awareness and understanding of code

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 75 agreed to.

Amendment 76 moved—[Finlay Carson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 5 moved—[Ariane Burgess].

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 5 disagreed to.

Amendment 77 not moved.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8—Registration of litters

Amendment 50 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Section 9—Regulations: supplementary

Amendment 51 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Section 10—Compliance

Amendment 52 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Section 11—Public awareness and understanding of relevant regulatory regimes

Amendment 53 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

After section 11

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 75 agreed to.

Amendment 76 moved—[Finlay Carson]—and agreed to.

Amendment 5 moved—[Ariane Burgess].

Mark Harvey, what are your views on the four-stage process?

Ronan O’Hara, do you believe that the Crown Estate, as part of the consenting group, had a sufficient mandate to tackle the challenges that we have just touched on?

Before we move on from this section of questions, I have a final one for Mark Harvey and Rachel Shucksmith.

The recommendations were made by the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee back in 2018, and the Scottish Government now says in its programme for government that one of its objectives is to “Improve the consenting process”. That suggests that the pace of change has not been good enough, given that the Government wants to see an increase in the economic impact of fish farms. Over the past eight years, have we failed to deliver the recommendations of the committee?

Rachel Shucksmith, do you have any comments on the pace of change?

To sum up, it appears that there is a lack of capacity and ability to enforce planning conditions effectively and sufficiently.