Chamber and committees

There will be a division.

For

Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)

Against

Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)

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

Amendment 79 disagreed to.

Amendment 78 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 78 disagreed to.

Section 12—Interpretation

Amendment 54 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Section 13—Commencement

Amendment 55 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

Long title

Amendment 56 moved—[Christine Grahame]—and agreed to.

Amendments 57 and 58 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Long title, as amended, agreed to.

Thank you. I call Rhoda Grant to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 64.

I call the minister to wind up.

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 amendment 72 and other amendments in the group.

Our next item of business is an evidence session as part of our follow-up inquiry into salmon farming in Scotland. Today’s session is about marine spatial planning and consenting processes. We have around 90 minutes for the discussion. I welcome to the meeting Mark Harvey, who is from the planning team in Highland Council, and Ronan O’Hara, who is the chief executive of the Crown Estate Scotland. Rachel Shucksmith, who is the marine spatial planning manager at the University of the Highlands and Islands, joins us remotely.

I also welcome Edward Mountain MSP, who will be taking part in the discussion. Mr Mountain, do you have any interests to declare?

Dr Shucksmith, what do you believe are the current challenges around aquaculture planning and consenting, and what further improvements would help the current regime to address them?

One of the REC Committee’s key recommendations was that there should be a more integrated and co-ordinated framework approach to consenting. One of the consenting task group’s solutions was to pilot a four-stage process. What is your experience of that? Is it working? What are your thoughts on the four-stage process?

We move to our next theme, which is strategic spatial planning.