Official Report 842KB pdf
The final item on the agenda is our consideration of the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. I welcome to the meeting Gillian Martin, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, who is supported by Scottish Government officials. I also welcome other members who are participating in this morning’s stage 2 consideration. The officials seated at the table are here to support the cabinet secretary, but they are not permitted to speak in the debate.
Before section 2
Amendment 115, in the name of Alasdair Allan, is grouped with amendments 26, 5, 116, 6, 196, 117, 7, 57, 8, 1, 58, 59, 118 to 120, 9, 10, 121, 313, 2, 60 and 3. I draw members’ attention to the pre-emptions in the group, which are shown in the groupings paper.
I will move amendment 115, and I will also speak to the other amendments in the group. Forgive me if I do so a little comprehensively.
I believe that the power in part 2 of the bill is essential to ensure that Scotland can continue to meet its environmental obligations in a way that is fit for purpose, particularly in the context of our net zero and nature restoration ambitions. I am aware of the committee’s interest in those subjects, and I am particularly aware that Sarah Boyack has lodged a non-regression provision under amendments 5 and 6, while Beatrice Wishart has lodged a non-regression provision under amendment 196. Their amendments respond directly to the concerns, and they reflect the strong and consistent calls from stakeholders, particularly environmental non-governmental organisations, and from the committee itself, following the stage 1 debate, for a non-regression provision. I am keen to ensure that any non-regression provision offers a clear and practical safeguard that supports our shared ambitions of nature restoration and tackling climate change.
The use of a non-regression provision, if it is not appropriately drafted, might stifle the delivery of those ambitions, and I believe that my amendments achieve the right balance when compared with other non-regression provisions that have been proposed. A non-regression provision will introduce a legal obligation, and I know that the Government and others believe that there needs to be a proportionate and workable safeguard that strikes a balance between maintaining flexibility and ensuring accountability. I urge the committee to support my amendments in the group.
Amendments 115 to 117 all respond directly to concerns raised regarding the power in part 2 of the bill. The amendments would introduce a non-regression provision to ensure that, crucially, any future use of the power under part 2 would not reduce the overall standards of environmental protection while having explicit regard to the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss—recognising that progress in one of those areas cannot be achieved without progress in the other. I hope that we can all agree on those points.
In addition, the power proposed in part 2 is required to support broader aims and cross-cutting work, particularly in relation to net zero, energy security and climate change. In order to provide further reassurance, my amendment 117 would add a safeguard by requiring Scottish ministers to
“lay before the Scottish Parliament a statement confirming that they consider that the environmental protection requirement”—
under amendment 115—
“has been met.”
I respectfully ask the committee to oppose amendments 5, 6, 196 and 313, and I urge the committee to support my amendments 115 to 117. Those amendments are part of a suite of amendments with the collective purpose of enhancing safeguards around the exercise of the power in section 2(1), which directly responds to the committee’s concerns as outlined in the stage 1 debate. My environmental protection requirement should not be considered in isolation from Ms Harper’s amendment 57.
Part 2 of the bill contains a power that can be exercised only if any changes align with one or more of the purposes that are set out in sections 3(a) to 3(f). Amendment 120 specifies that, in that respect, other legal regimes must be pertinent to the effective operation of the relevant environmental impact assessment or habitats legislation, or must be otherwise desirable for such legislation to interact with. I believe that amendment 120 represents a proportionate and practical improvement to the bill, and I encourage members to support it.
Similarly, my amendment 121 refines the purpose in section 3(f) of the bill. As originally drafted, that purpose allows changes
“to improve or simplify the operation of the law.”
Amendment 121 makes that more precise by clarifying that the specified purpose is intended to enable administrative changes or adjustments to regulatory processes that
“reduce the administrative burden of complying with a condition, standard or requirement”.
That would ensure that the power is used solely for administrative and procedural improvements, such as streamlining processes—for example, updating the EIA regime to remove the need for paper copies of applications when electronic versions are already provided. I hope that members will agree that that is a sensible and reasonable approach.
I move amendment 115.
I appreciate the comments made by Alasdair Allan and the amendments in this group that have been lodged by others to make sense of part 2 of the bill. As a committee, we have struggled to understand what the purpose of part 2 is. We had evidence that flexibility is required to enable the submission of PDF copies of environmental assessments, and we had debates and discussion about the need for flexibility around environmental assessments and habitats regulations in relation to renewable energy. It has unfolded, in the course of the evidence, that we already have that flexibility in both the environmental assessment and the habitats regulations regimes. There are improvements in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that can facilitate the development of renewable electricity, which the cabinet secretary has reflected on. At this point, I am still struggling to understand what the point of part 2 is.
In your recollection, did you hear anybody supporting part 2, other than Government organisations?
I did not, and that is why I have lodged amendments 1 to 3, which would delete part 2. Putting that proposal on the table enables the Government to think again, between stage 2 and stage 3, about the purpose of the bill and about where we need flexibility.
I do not think that giving ministers an indefinite power effectively to rewrite environmental assessment and habitats regulations provisions is appropriate for a bill that is primarily about tackling the nature emergency. In theory, that could allow the watering down of 40 years’ worth of EU environmental legislation, and it would ignore the Parliament’s desire to keep pace with European Union legislation. Given the evidence, I am struggling to see what the case is for that flexibility. We are still struggling to understand how sites are already designated under the habitats regulations, what the process is for that and why there is no flexibility to make adjustments that could assist with nature restoration.
I will listen to the arguments. I have heard the arguments from Alasdair Allan, and later I would like to hear the cabinet secretary’s reflections on where she is in relation to part 2, but I think that it is important to have the option that I have presented on the table. I will push it to the vote, because we need to know where we stand, at least at stage 2. We will see which amendments get passed in this group, but I would like there to be further discussion between stage 2 and stage 3, because I do not feel that we will have concluded our thinking on the matter by the end of our consideration today.
Amendment 26 picks up on the committee’s recommendation at stage 1 to revisit the sunset clause on the keeping-pace power in the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021. That power is due to expire in 2027, but the Parliament has the option to extend it to 2031. This is an area where the ability to adjust habitats regulations and environmental assessment will be needed in the future if we are to remain broadly in line with the European legislation framework that has protected the environment across Europe—nature knows no boundaries.
11:00The committee’s stage 1 report said:
“the Committee does not expect these suggestions to have significant policy implications. They would also give the Scottish Government the opportunity to undertake a thorough review of the operation of the EIA legislation and Habitats Regulations, as suggested by some stakeholders”,
but not to break out of the European policy framework. That is the context for amendment 26. Obviously, we cannot fix environmental legislation in a moment in time, but the stakeholders who gave evidence seem to believe that the existing system provides flexibility, and we need flexibility in relation to alignment with future EU laws. Amendment 26 would give that flexibility.
That is my starting point for discussion. Let us see where we get to.
Like the previous two speakers, I want to respond to the concerns that the committee raised at stage 1 but also those that were raised by a raft of stakeholders who got in touch because they were worried about unintended consequences from this section of the bill, which provides ministers with the wide-ranging power to modify key environmental protections. I want to try to reintroduce protections into the bill.
First, I thank the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management for its support in crafting the amendments, which have four clear aims for improving the bill: greater clarity and precision in drafting, ensuring that the legislation is easier to interpret and aligned with the structure elsewhere in the bill; a clear non-regression guarantee that requires ministers to confirm that any changes do not weaken existing environmental protections, a safeguard that is in line with Scottish environmental ambitions and international obligations; stronger alignment with our duties under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994; and ensuring that modifications respect the management objectives of the UK site network and the conservation needs of environmentally important habitats.
The key issue of enhanced parliamentary oversight has already been mentioned this morning, and I noticed reference to a ministerial statement being required. My ambition is to strengthen the bill, and there are different ways of doing that.
My amendment 5 is about clarity and precision, strengthening accountability and improving the consistency of drafting across the bill.
My amendment 6 is a generic non-regression safeguard for any regulations that are made under part 2. As has already been said, we have nature and climate crises and we need to address them both, but we also need safeguarding standards, and amendment 6 seeks to close a loophole and reinforce public trust. Environmental law should be thinking ahead, not looking backwards. We need the bill to align with Scotland’s wider commitments on climate and environmental ambitions and not to erode them by making technical changes.
My amendment 7 would make sure that, when the Scottish ministers were considering regulations, they would think about how any modification or restatement conformed with their duties in relation to the UK site network, under the habitats regulations. Again, I want to make sure that there is consistent application in line with existing statutory duties when looking at the conservation of European sites in Scotland and no undermining of the management and protection of those critical habitats. Amendment 7 is therefore about protecting the integrity of the UK site network by not allowing minor technical changes to have a big impact, as well as about strengthening environmental leadership and embedding accountability in the bill.
It was interesting to hear Alasdair Allan’s speech in favour of his amendments. My version, which is set out in my amendment 8, is about limiting ministerial discretion, enhancing democratic oversight and preventing ministers from bypassing proper parliamentary scrutiny. As drafted, the bill definitely risks allowing significant changes to be made with only procedural approval. My amendment would ensure that powers could not be exercised without a full, proper legislative debate and would avoid authority being expanded without accountability. The list of provisions that my amendment 8 would remove includes serious matters such as arrest powers, search powers and fees, which should not slide through under secondary legislation. Again, it is a matter of power.
My amendment 9 would remove section 3(e)—stakeholders raised many concerns about it at stage 1—in order to tighten the scope of ministerial powers, prevent overreach, focus on genuine policy purposes and prevent technical tidying up being done by the back door to weaken or dilute environmental standards and safeguards.
My amendment 10 is, again, about narrowing ministerial powers. The phrase
“to improve or simplify the operation of the law”
is vague and could lead to wide-ranging changes.
I have a question that is in the same vein as my question for Mark Ruskell. We heard no evidence that the current legislation on environmental impact assessments and designations was weak or needed strengthened. The provisions almost reinvent the wheel, and the Parliament is trying to ensure that there are no loopholes. I am sure that you have made a good job of closing the loopholes that you have identified. Other than allowing the submission of evidence through PDF or other electronic methods, there is very little evidence that anything would be gained by giving the Government such powers. Did you consider whether part 2 might be unnecessary and could introduce problems through loopholes?
The purpose of my amendments is to fix those problems in the legislation, and I engaged with stakeholders to see how we could do that. It is up to committee members to decide which options they want to support. I was trying to be constructive by increasing accountability and avoiding that non-regression challenge by preventing environmental regulations being inadvertently reduced. I was trying to come up with amendments that would help and strengthen the bill, because, as you suggested, the current wording significantly weakens environmental protections. It is about getting that joined-up thinking and accountability.
My amendment 10 would ensure that changes are substantive and accountable, that we debate such issues openly in the Parliament and that they do not just slip under people’s notice. Accountability cannot be left only to ministerial discretion through secondary legislation. I was trying to drive joined-up thinking and action on the climate and nature crises that we face and that will only get worse. What a minister sees as simplification might weaken environmental protections, so I wanted to include protections in the bill. It is up to the committee members to decide how to vote.
I have listened to Alasdair Allan’s suggestions about what his amendments would do, and I will listen to the rest of the debate.
Part 2 of the bill introduces a new regulatory power relating to nature restoration. Without a non-regression clause, there is a risk that regulations could be weakened by future Governments, standards could be lowered through secondary legislation and the overall environmental protection regime could become less robust over time. That is particularly important because, although nature targets are long term, regulations might change more frequently.
My amendment 196 seeks to address that by ensuring that any regulations that are made under part 2 can only maintain or improve existing environmental standards. That non-regression safeguard ensures continuity and prevents backsliding at the implementation stage.
I note that other members have also lodged non-regression amendments. That reflects the concerns that others have alluded to and the need for such amendments. My amendment uses the phrase “maintain or improve”, which reflects the standard that is used in other major environmental statutes and provides a clear, legally recognisable threshold.
I will speak to my amendment 57. I believe that the cabinet secretary has always been clear that if the power in section 2(1) were used to make significant changes, the affirmative procedure should apply. I recognise that concerns were raised during the stage 1 debate about the lack of clarity on when the affirmative procedure would apply in respect of regulations made under section 2(1). My amendment has been developed with input from the cabinet secretary to ensure that it reflects the views that were expressed during the scrutiny of part 2 of the bill.
Sarah Boyack’s amendment 8 would introduce the affirmative procedure to cover the power that is provided in part 2 of the bill. However, such a blanket provision requiring the affirmative procedure would not be proportionate or an efficient use of public resources or the Parliament’s time.
I therefore seek support from the committee for my amendment 57, which strikes the right balance, as it would ensure that the affirmative procedure was used for substantive changes while allowing the negative procedure to be used only for clearly minor technical or administrative updates. That approach would maintain robust scrutiny where it was needed without creating unnecessary delays. My amendment reflects the most efficient use of the Parliament’s role in scrutinising legislation.
I therefore ask Sarah Boyack not to move amendment 8, and I ask members to support my amendment 57, which clarifies the procedure in sections 2, 6 and 7 of part 2 of the bill.
If we keep part 2 of the bill, I will move my amendments, but my concerns about part 2 align with those of Mark Ruskell and Sarah Boyack.
My amendments 58 and 60 pick up an issue that was raised in evidence by the Royal Society of Edinburgh. I have a strong vision for Scotland being a forest nation, but that must be ensured in a way that recognises the very challenging context that we face, which is a severely depleted natural environment.
Amendment 58 proposes that new commercial forestry plantations over 50 hectares in size be required to carry out an environmental impact assessment. I lodged a similar amendment to the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill. We need further scrutiny to ensure that trees are planted in the right places and that the creation of new commercial plantations is weighed against alternative activities such as natural woodland creation.
My amendment would also ensure that public consultation as part of the EIA process was widespread, structured and transparent. Tree planting, for whatever purpose, needs to consider the wellbeing of Scotland and all its living inhabitants. Formal consultation allows all interests to be considered and helps to legitimise the outcomes of the application process. I had lengthy discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands about the issue during scrutiny of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, and I believe that the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill is an appropriate place to include such an amendment.
My amendment 59 would give statutory protection to Ramsar sites, which are designated under the Ramsar convention as wetlands of international importance. In Scotland, the sites are currently protected by a policy that treats them as if they were European sites for the purpose of land use planning and environmental assessment. However, that protection is not enshrined in law, which creates potential uncertainty—having heard from stakeholders, I think that it is more than just potential—and an inconsistency in decision making. Putting Ramsar protection in law would give legal certainty and ensure consistent application across Scotland. It would strengthen our compliance with international environmental obligations to keep pace with environmental standards now that we are outwith the European Union. I appreciate the work that RSPB Scotland has done to support the amendment.
11:15
We can all agree that part 2 of the bill causes most concern, and my amendments 118 and 119 are designed to improve it.
My amendment 118 aims to ensure that there is a balance between climate and nature targets. My amendment would delete the words
“(including, in particular, the net zero emissions target set by section A1 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009)”.
Those words are unnecessary, because part 2 of the bill gives ministers wide powers to amend environmental law to facilitate progress towards any statutory target. As drafted, the bill would allow changes in support of unrelated targets—such as those related to energy, waste and transport—that risk weakening nature protection.
Specifically referring to climate targets risks creating a hierarchy in which nature protections are weakened in order to facilitate energy infrastructure and other decarbonisation efforts. Powers under part 2 should support nature recovery as well as climate targets and ensure that one is not pursued at the other’s expense. My amendment would remove the implication that climate targets have priority over nature recovery targets.
My amendment 119 would delete section 3(c), which provides a purpose that is intended to ensure consistency and compatibility with other domestic and international legal regimes. That purpose is too broad, it is unclear under which circumstances such a power would be necessary, and it has the potential to be misused.
First, I will talk about Mark Ruskell’s amendments. He lodged them very quickly, but they exactly represent the concerns about part 2 of the bill that we heard. It is not often that we hear such uniform concern from various stakeholders, but it is what was apparent.
I like what Mark Ruskell has done. My personal preference—I urge any Opposition member in the committee to consider this—is that we should say at stage 2, “Delete this, go back and think again.” The cabinet secretary and the civil servants behind the scenes should go back, because there is clearly a problem here. Various amendments are floating around, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not. Fundamentally, Mark Ruskell is right to push to delete part 2 of the bill at stage 2. Rather than amending part 2 in a piecemeal way, let us have a proper debate on its provisions once the Government has taken more advice from stakeholders ahead of stage 3.
My amendment 313 is effectively a non-regression clause that would retain the protections that are currently in place, should we choose not to delete part 2 today. However, as I said, my preference is that we delete part 2 at this point, so I fully support Mark Ruskell’s amendments 1, 2 and 3.
I will start by expressing my agreement with Dr Allan’s earlier remarks and urging the committee to support his amendments, which we worked on together.
Dr Allan’s amendments 115 to 117 are designed to alleviate concerns by including an environmental protection requirement in part 2 of the bill and narrowing the scope of the purpose set out in section 3(c). His amendment 121 seeks to narrow the scope of the purpose set out in section 3(f).
I put on record—I think that I also reflected this in the evidence at stage 1—that I agree that we need to ensure that any legislation is not vulnerable to being misused by any future Government that does not have biodiversity or climate goals in its sights or that does not agree with them. I am happy to see that a lot of work has been done by various members on that. I do not agree with deleting part 2 of the bill, but I am absolutely convinced that Dr Allan’s amendments are a significant step towards having a safeguard put in place, and Scottish Environment LINK has expressed that they are a significant step forward.
I will now turn to other amendments in the group. Although I recognise the attempts that members have made to introduce non-regression clauses and agree with the intention behind that, the amendments that Dr Allan has lodged are those that I feel achieve the objectives in a way that I can stand beside.
Ms Boyack’s amendments 5 and 6, Ms Wishart’s amendment 196 and Mr Eagle’s amendment 313 all seek to introduce a non-regression provision to part 2 of the bill. They respond directly to the understandable concerns that stakeholders and the committee raised about the need for a non-regression provision. Of course, we need to decide which non-regression provision members might want to get behind and support.
The breadth of the power and the absence of safeguards in part 2 of the bill were mentioned in the stage 1 debate. We need safeguards—I hope that members recognise that I agree with everyone on that. The Government shares the ambition to uphold high environmental standards. However, a non-regression provision amendment needs to offer a clearer, more workable safeguard that supports our ambitions for both nature restoration and climate change. I do not agree that one has priority over the other—they are inextricably linked and have parity, as far as I am concerned.
As a non-regression provision would introduce legal obligation, the Government believes that any provision needs to be proportionate and a workable safeguard that strikes a balance between maintaining flexibility and ensuring accountability.
Do you see that there is already a balance in the habitats regulations? There is the overriding public interest test, and it is possible to make decisions that strike a balance between climate and nature—indeed, Governments do so all the time. What is wrong with our current system?
I am aware that regulation 9D was mentioned in stage 1 of the debate and that there were calls to amend the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021. Let us consider regulation 9D. I will outline why I do not believe that it provides the safeguards that people have mentioned. It includes an obligation on the Scottish ministers to
“manage, and where necessary adapt, the UK site network ... with a view to contributing to the achievement of the management objectives”.
It has not been used in practice so far. There is an implied power to comply with that duty, despite the lack of specific legal provision in the habitats regulations. However, regulation 9D applies only to the UK site network—it does not allow ministers to amend the broader habitats regulations or the EIA regime in the way that we have set out in the policy memorandum to the bill.
If one of the amendments that puts a non-regression provision in the bill is passed, I hope that it will effectively ensure that members are happier with part 2 and that it will protect against future Governments that do not have environmental protection as a priority—
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I have not finished.
The continuity act was also mentioned as a way of keeping pace with EU law, but it provides for a narrower power that does not give us the flexibility to respond to the wider international obligations or domestic needs. I believe that we need to put something in the bill that puts those protections in place. That is why I am happy with Alasdair Allan’s amendments, which I think do that. We must recognise that some of the existing regulations do not quite hit the mark.
I am sorry to have cut across you, cabinet secretary. I was listening to what you said about regulation 9D and the need for perhaps more flexibility around site designations. If that is the only purpose of part 2 of the bill, why was that not brought forward in it? Why is the purpose of this so narrowly defined that we are only really talking about site designations and flexibility rather than the raft of other ways in which that section of the bill could be used to amend both habitats regulations and environmental impact assessments?
I am not entirely sure that I understand the question. I have just set out how regulation 9D does not give us the flexibility to adapt to situations that require that flexibility and fleet-of-foot reaction. I am confident that the adoption of Alasdair Allan’s amendments would allay any concerns about not having non-regression safeguards in the bill.
I set out at stage 1 many of the reasons why we could not have a static situation. For example, we could have protected areas that no longer protect the species that they were originally set up to protect, because of the effects of climate change on that species. We need to have a more fleet-of-foot response available. I also point to Emma Harper’s amendment in relation to the affirmative procedure being used for substantive amendments and changes, which is also right.
The suite of amendments from Alasdair Allan and Emma Harper should allay a lot of the difficulties that people had at stage 1.
The concerns are that part 2 goes far too far and is not proportionate. That is why quite a few of us have lodged amendments. It is about the issue of ministerial accountability and getting that balance right. The idea behind the affirmative procedure is about making sure that the Parliament gets to formally approve any regulations, so that they do not simply slide through. It is absolutely crucial that we do not weaken protections by accident. That is why we are all trying to test the purpose and impact in terms of future decisions.
Sarah Boyack has set out why the affirmative procedure is extremely important for the parliamentary scrutiny of anything that future ministers might want to do that entails substantive changes. That is proportionate.
Of course, if we were to have affirmative procedures for all the minor and technical things that might be put through, which do not entail particular policy or material changes, that would be disproportionate. That is why I am supportive of what Emma Harper came to discuss with me.
I will move on and talk about the other amendments.
I would like to make an intervention before you do, because we all have real concerns about part 2.
We are trying to amend part 2 in order to strengthen it and make it less open to abuse, but we will need to take stock between stages 2 and 3. If we do not amend that part at stage 2, there will be the option to remove it at stage 3. Would the cabinet secretary be open to having discussions about concerns that might arise if we do not think that the amendments made at stage 2 actually work?
Absolutely—I am always open to having discussions with members.
I feel fairly confident that the amendments lodged by Dr Allan and Emma Harper will put scrutiny in there. Dr Allan’s amendments, in particular, include provisions to make sure that no future Government could weaken environmental protections. That is what we all want, because we do not know what will happen in the future.
The very legitimate argument was made by some members at stage 1 that, although we might trust the Government, and even the parties that sit in the Parliament, right now with regard to environmental protections, we do not know what will happen or who will be in government in the future, and we would not want to leave the bill open to misuse.
I therefore commend the members who have said that we need to put in place provisions such that any future Government could not use anything in part 2 to weaken environmental protections. The strength of feeling on that has been demonstrated by the amendments that have been lodged.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I want to finish my point first.
Specifically in recognition of those concerns, I have worked with Dr Allan on amendments that will strengthen the provisions. We have tested some of those amendments with ENGOs. That is why I mentioned Scottish Environment LINK’s comments in that regard.
These amendments address what are seen as failures or weaknesses in this part of the bill. However, I am still lost as to the strengths of this part of the bill. What does it bring that will improve what we have at the moment? I am still unclear about that. As you touched on, at stage 1, not one stakeholder could identify any positives about this part. Amendments are all very well—they address weaknesses and potential failures and loopholes in the bill—but what are the strengths of this part of the bill? What positives will it bring?
11:30
At stage 1, I set out why we included part 2, which was to address some of the gaps that had been left in the legislation as a result of EU exit. We need to fill in those gaps as much as possible, because they leave us with an inability to adapt to any impacts or changes to particular areas as a result of climate change—or anything—in a fleet-of-foot manner. There might be times when ministers have to act very quickly to align with evolving global climate and biodiversity standards.
There are various examples. On the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement, we have to rely on the UK Government to provide a power for Scottish ministers to amend our EIA regulations. I would much rather that that was already within the Scottish Government’s competence than our having to wait on another Government to give us the powers.
The loophole has been created as a result of EU exit. That was the main reason for part 2 of the bill, and the main concerns about part 2 were about non-regression rather than the existence of that part. I certainly did not hear anything compelling, outwith what politicians were saying, to suggest that it should be removed wholesale. The concerns that I heard—my adviser and I had discussions with Scottish Environment LINK—were about non-regression and the potential for the lack of parliamentary scrutiny if the affirmative procedure was not required for substantive changes.
There certainly were calls for the whole of part 2 to be removed. This is probably an extreme example of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The committee heard that this part of the bill allows the Government to legislate in lots of areas that are yet to be defined and that it provides far too much power for ministers. Why did the Government decide to deal with the issue in that manner rather than by addressing the particular issues that you have highlighted? This is absolutely an example of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I do not agree with the phraseology of sledgehammers and nuts. I have explained the reasoning behind the provisions in part 2, which was to do with closing the gap that was caused by EU exit and giving Scottish ministers the power to act in an adaptive and swift way, should they have to, without waiting for an agreement with the UK Government. It has not, and has never been, the policy of this Government to dismantle Scotland’s environmental protections, but one area on which I agree with members is that, if we did not include safeguards, we would leave that possibility open to future Governments. Convener, you and I are not going to agree on this, because, as you made very clear at stage 1, you have already made up your mind that you want part 2 to be removed—the same goes for Mark Ruskell.
I have worked with Alasdair Allan and Emma Harper to allay stakeholders’ concerns so that, we hope, people will be able to support part 2 in its entirety, as amended. Part 2 introduces the bespoke power to modify the 1994 habitats regulations and legislation on the environmental impact assessment regime. It plugs the legislative gap that exists as a result of EU exit. The power is essential to ensure that we continue to meet our environmental obligations in a way that is fit for purpose, particularly in the context of net zero and nature restoration ambitions.
I understand that, as drafted, part 2 does not include safeguards. Having worked with Dr Allan and Emma Harper, I am confident that we have allayed those concerns and that, if their amendments are agreed to, we will have a much stronger part 2 that will protect against future Governments being able to abuse the provisions. If the amendments are agreed to, future Governments will simply not be able to do that.
I recognise that amendment 7 was lodged due to the concerns that we have heard from other committee members, and from stakeholders in their evidence, about the scope of the proposed powers to modify the environmental impact assessment legislation and habitats regulations. I recognise the concerns, but I cannot support amendment 7, because there is already a duty on Scottish ministers to manage and, where necessary, adapt the UK site network, as is specified in regulation 9D of the habitats regulations. That is where regulation 9D is strong. Therefore, when considering the use of the power to amend the habitats regulations, ministers must already have regard to regulation 9D and any potential implications for the UK site network. I ask the member not to move amendment 7, failing which, I ask the committee to reject it.
Amendment 8 would introduce the affirmative procedure to cover the power provided in part 2. I absolutely recognise the concerns that were raised in the stage 1 debate about the lack of clarity as to when the affirmative procedure should apply. I have always been clear that, if the power were to be used to make significant changes, the affirmative procedure should apply. Ms Boyack’s amendment 8 reflects the desire for stronger safeguards, but I would argue that a blanket requirement for the affirmative procedure is not proportionate and would not be an efficient use of the public resource of the Parliament’s time, as that would also cover all the minor and technical changes that might be made over time.
There is a judgment call to be made. Emma Harper’s amendment 57 offers a more balanced approach, but both amendments have the affirmative procedure in their sights; it is just a case of whether the committee wants to have the affirmative procedure for every minor and technical amendment that we might make. It is the committee’s judgment call.
I appreciate the cabinet secretary giving way and describing this in a lot of detail. However, my whole intention was to implement a more proportionate approach. I appreciate the feedback on my amendment. Does she agree that the approach set out in my amendment would allow for more intensive scrutiny, if required?
If I may, I will give an example, because this is why I think that your amendment would create a proportionate approach. We heard the example of changing the requirement for EIA reports to be electronic only, rather than on paper, for reasons of efficiency. That would be an administrative change, but I think that using the affirmative procedure for that change would be disproportionate. I do not run the committee, and the committee might believe that it is appropriate for all minor and technical changes to be subject to the affirmative procedure and, therefore, scrutiny in committee. That is entirely up to the committee. Personally, as a parliamentarian and a former convener, I would see that as taking up an awful lot of time, and the committee’s time could be better spent. It is up to the committee to decide whether it wants that.
One of the issues that I mentioned was new criminal offences or charges that could be created through secondary legislation. Can you confirm whether the affirmative procedure would be required for such a change? It is about being proportionate in using that opportunity.
The example that you have just given is a substantive change—a quite hefty substantive change—and, of course, you would expect the Parliament to have the affirmative procedure in place to scrutinise anything in relation to criminality.
On Mark Ruskell’s amendments 1 to 3, as I said, part 2 introduces a bespoke power to modify the 1994 habitats regulations and the legislation that forms the environmental impact assessment regime, and it plugs the legislative gap arising from EU exit. The powers are essential in order for Scotland to continue to meet its environmental obligations in a way that is fit for purpose, particularly in the context of our nature restoration and net zero targets. Removing part 2 of the bill entirely would undermine our ability to take a fast and flexible approach to tackling the twin crises of climate change and nature loss in the face of evolving circumstances. It is appropriate to put in safeguards, but it would be a misstep to remove the ability to adapt flexibly and to be fleet of foot in changing circumstances.
I recognise and accept the concerns that have been raised by the committee and a range of stakeholders. The power in part 2 of the bill is too broad—I accept that—and it could potentially be used to dilute environmental protection, which I want to avoid. Such is the beauty of parliamentary scrutiny and the committee process that concerns can be raised and the Government can reflect on them and work with members to put in safeguards. That is exactly what we have done.
We are unequivocally committed to protecting the environment. The bill has not been designed to dilute environmental protection, but I fully accept that, without the changes in the amendments that have been lodged by Dr Allan and Emma Harper, it could be misused by future Governments. We all want to avoid that happening.
Amendments 58 and 60 seek to place a hard limit on triggering an EIA for the creation of any new conifer woodland schemes. Ariane Burgess has said that those amendments are a continuation of amendments that were lodged but not agreed to for the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill.
My colleague Mairi Gougeon explained then why such a limit would not be appropriate. However, I will reiterate some of the reasoning now in relation to this bill. All new planting schemes in Scotland that exceed 20 hectares are already subject to a screening assessment under the Forestry (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017. There are also strict thresholds in regulations that set out where, in particularly sensitive areas, EIA screening is always required. If the outcome of a screening assessment is that a project is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, it should be subject to an EIA.
For comparison—Mairi Gougeon alluded to this in her response to the member—Ireland introduced a mandatory 50 hectare limit back in 2001. What has happened since then provides a sobering reality. In the past 22 years, there has not been a single forestry application in Ireland to establish a forest that is greater than 50 hectares in size, because it would be too administratively onerous to do so.
We have tree-planting targets, and the climate change plan has tree-planting targets in it for the sequestration of carbon. As everyone around this table knows, tree planting is particularly important in protecting and enhancing biodiversity and providing habitats for species that would otherwise be under threat. I am sticking with Ms Gougeon’s approach to this issue.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will take it in a second. The wording of the definition that is provided in amendment 60 is also problematic because it would apply to native and non-native conifers. It would also apply not only in commercial contexts but to any “other purposes”. That means that the definition could apply to projects that seek to restore fragile Caledonian pinewoods. Therefore, the amendment is disproportionate and the definition too broad. There could be unintended consequences, which, as I have just outlined, was the result in Ireland.
I hear the cabinet secretary’s point about what has happened in Ireland, but I do not know the broader context. It is difficult to mix apples and bananas and say that they are the same thing, so I would be interested in knowing more about the context.
I brought the proposed provision back because I am working with stakeholders who have raised a concern about the environmental impacts of large-scale conifer plantations. I started my contribution to today’s stage 2 proceedings by saying that I want Scotland to be a forest nation. However, we need to achieve that in a way that ensures that conifer plantations do not have a detrimental impact on all the other things that you just listed.
I would appreciate having a conversation with you, and maybe we can consider doing something. That might not be for this bill, but I am keen to take the issue forward and ensure that the environmental impacts are taken into consideration, because they are considerable.
At the root of what I am trying to do are the facts that we have a limited public purse and there are climate and nature emergencies. The question is where we deploy the funding. I would like the public sector to be much more supportive of what we are trying to do regarding the climate and nature.
11:45
I absolutely understand the concerns around the right type of planting happening in the right types of places. As I was able to outline, all new planting schemes that exceed 20 hectares are already subject to a screening assessment under the forestry regulations. There are strict thresholds there. We do not believe that amendment 60 as drafted would have the intended effect.
Our officials have considered the implications of what was agreed in Ireland. They have done the work in assessing the impact that a similar piece of legislation—a similar amendment to the law—had there. We need to bear in mind the consequences of making it too onerous for projects to continue. We do not want to stop tree planting, which has all the positive effects that we have just mentioned.
I have better news for Ariane Burgess, however, in relation to amendment 59. Ramsar sites are recognised as internationally important areas for wetland habitats and the water birds that they support under the Ramsar convention. It is important that we do all that we can to ensure that they are protected from damaging activity. It is the Scottish Government’s policy that listed Ramsar sites in Scotland should be treated as if they were European sites for the purposes of land-use-change decision making. I am delighted to support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 59. I hope that the committee gets behind her.
However, ahead of stage 3, we would need to revise some of the wording in the amendment, if Ariane Burgess would be happy to work with me on that. It is almost there, but it requires a couple of little tweaks. I am absolutely supportive of the intent behind the amendment—it is a good amendment in its intent—but the wording needs a little bit of looking at. I therefore ask Ariane Burgess not to move amendment 59 today, and we can work on something that she can bring back at stage 3 that we can all get behind and feel confident in. I would be very pleased if we could do that.
Turning to amendments 118 to 120, section 3 of the bill sets out the purposes for which Scottish ministers may exercise the power to make regulations under section 2(1). Those purposes are essential to ensure that our environmental assessment frameworks remain robust, aligned with obligations and adaptable to future needs. The powers in part 2 can be exercised only if the changes align with one or more of the purposes set out in section 3. However, we have heard calls from stakeholders and the committee that those purposes are viewed as too broad. Rhoda Grant’s amendments 118 and 119 would significantly narrow those purposes. Amendment 118 would remove the reference to the net zero emissions target from purpose (b) in section 3. That reference was included as an illustrative example to underline the importance of climate considerations in decision making, alongside other environmental and biodiversity considerations. Taking that reference out would weaken the clear link between environmental regulation and Scotland’s climate commitments. They have absolute parity with one another; one does not supersede the other.
Amendment 119 would go further by removing purpose (c) entirely. Purpose (c) was originally drafted to allow ministers to ensure consistency or compatibility with other relevant legal regimes. Removing it would undermine the ability to maintain alignment with international obligations and future proof our environmental assessment system—which is particularly important post-Brexit, hence the reasoning that I gave earlier.
I am of the view that Dr Allan’s amendment 120 is a targeted and proportionate response to legitimate concerns that have been expressed. It would effectively narrow the scope to the relevant EIA legislation and habitats regulations, which are pertinent, and that is why I believe that the committee should support that amendment.
For the reasons that I have set out, I would ask Rhoda Grant not to move amendments 118 and 119. Instead, I strongly urge members to support amendment 120.
Sarah Boyack’s amendments 9 and 10 would reduce the scope of part 2 of the bill by removing two purposes for which the power may be used from section 3. As I have already stated, I recognise the concerns that have been raised.
The amendments in the name of Sarah Boyack respond directly to those concerns; we have had conversation about the amendments, and I completely understand the intention behind them. However, I have also talked to Sarah Boyack about Dr Allan’s amendments, on which I have worked with him. I hope that Ms Boyack’s Labour colleagues can agree that Dr Allan has lodged amendments that also address those concerns, and we have worked with him to ensure that we can support the wording in them.
Retaining purposes (e) and (f) will maintain flexibility in how the power in section 2(1) is used. However, recognising the concerns, Dr Allan’s amendment 121 would refine the scope of purpose (f) to make it clear that it is to enable administrative changes or to alter aspects of regulatory processes, rather than to make changes to core assessment requirements or substantive environmental standards or protections.
That means that the power can be utilised for streamlining processes and for modernising any procedural or administrative aspects within the EIA and habitats regimes, such as updating the EIA regime to enable the removal of requirements to submit paper copies of applications or other documents alongside electronic versions of the same documents. Purpose (f) will not allow for changes to core assessment requirements or to substantive environmental protections.
I acknowledge that stakeholders have expressed their desire to see the removal of purpose (f) entirely, citing that purpose (a) could capture such a requirement. However, it is unlikely that we could rely on purpose (a) to simplify processes or reduce administrative burdens. I think that we all want the unnecessary red tape to be stripped away to ensure that our agencies, and those who have to apply for any kind of permissions, are not overburdened by unnecessary administration.
I therefore ask Sarah Boyack not to move amendments 9 and 10, and I urge the committee to support Dr Allan’s amendment 121.
I call Alasdair Allan to wind up and say whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 115.
I have nothing further to say other than that I will press amendment 115.
I am a bit concerned about your amendment 115, which pertains to providing extra safeguards. It is quite clear that it is only Scottish ministers who have to be satisfied that the overall environmental protection is not reduced.
Can you set out what parliamentary oversight or safeguards there are, given that one of the powers to be exercised is
“to address the challenges posed by climate change”?
That could refer to large-scale wind farms or power transmission upgrades, including pylons. It would suggest that that power can be exercised as long as the Scottish ministers are satisfied that they can prioritise that aspect. The amendment would provide no safeguards at all other than the ministers being satisfied, and there would be no parliamentary oversight or scrutiny.
One of the concerns that has been expressed about part 2 of the bill is that it might allow ministers to take Scotland’s environmental policy in the opposite direction from the one in which we all want to take it. Amendments 115 to 117 would introduce a non-regression provision.
I accept that ministers have to make judgments about that, but what will be done will be done in the sight of Parliament. It is clearly essential that we have an explanation of the Government’s position at the time, and I am sure that that will be forthcoming.
I strongly believe that the amendments are the only proposed approach to a non-regression provision that is likely to strike the right balance, and—in my view, from working with the Government—they are the only amendments that are likely to be drafted in a way that is workable.
I have listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said, and the belief that your amendments would effectively make part 2 watertight. I have my doubts, and I believe that a number of stakeholders will have their doubts about that, too.
I guess that what I am asking is, would you be prepared to have further conversations between stage 2 and stage 3 if your amendments go through? I should say that I am going to move my amendment to delete the whole section, because I think that it would be very easy to rebuild it in a way that is proportionate. Nevertheless, would you be open to conversation around potential unintended consequences that may emerge, even though you have attempted to bring in some safeguards through working with the cabinet secretary around the non-regression provision?
I am happy to speak to you and other members about this as the bill progresses, but if you are minded to remove section 2 from the bill, I urge you instead to vote for things that would improve it. In my view—and I have been working with the Government—I believe that the amendments that have been lodged would increase scrutiny and increase pressure on the Government to move environmental policy in the right direction.
The question is, that amendment 115 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Abstentions
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 2, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 115 agreed to.
Amendment 26 moved—[Mark Ruskell].
The question is, that amendment 26 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. [Interruption.]
I am sorry, but I am going to have to run that vote again. It was not quite clear.
I will suspend the meeting for a second.
11:56 Meeting suspended.
There was some confusion about the vote on amendment 26, so I will run it again.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 26 disagreed to.
Section 2—Power to modify or restate EIA legislation and habitats regulations
Amendment 5 not moved.
Amendment 116 moved—[Alasdair Allan].
The question is, that amendment 116 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Abstentions
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 2, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 116 agreed to.
Amendment 6 not moved.
Amendment 196 moved—[Beatrice Wishart].
12:00
The question is, that amendment 196 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Abstentions
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 4, Abstentions 1.
As convener, I will use my casting vote for the amendment.
Amendment 196 agreed to.
Amendment 197 not moved.
Amendment 117 moved—[Alasdair Allan].
The question is, that amendment 117 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Abstentions
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 2, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 117 agreed to.
Amendment 7 not moved.
I remind members that, if amendment 57 in the name of Emma Harper, which has already been debated with amendment 115, is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 8, due to pre-emption.
Amendment 57 moved—[Emma Harper].
The question is, that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Abstentions
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 1, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 57 agreed to.
Amendment 1 moved—[Mark Ruskell].
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Abstentions
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 4, Abstentions 1.
As convener, I will use my casting vote for the amendment.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
After section 2
Amendment 58 moved—[Ariane Burgess].
The question is, that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Against
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 8, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 58 disagreed to.
Amendment 59 not moved.
Section 3—Purposes for modification or restatement of EIA legislation and habitats regulations
Amendment 118 not moved.
Amendment 198 moved—[Tim Eagle].
The question is, that amendment 198 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Against
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 198 disagreed to.
I remind members that, if amendment 119, in the name of Rhoda Grant, which has already been debated with amendment 115, is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 120, due to pre-emption.
Amendment 119 not moved.
Amendment 120 moved—[Alasdair Allan].
The question is, that amendment 120 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Abstentions
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 2, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 120 agreed to.
Amendments 9 and 199 not moved.
I remind members that, if amendment 10, in the name of Sarah Boyack, which has already been debated with amendment 115, is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 121, due to pre-emption.
Amendment 10 not moved.
Amendment 121 moved—[Alasdair Allan].
The question is, that amendment 121 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Abstentions
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 2, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 121 agreed to.
Amendment 313 moved—[Tim Eagle].
The question is, that amendment 313 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Abstentions
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 4, Abstentions 1.
As the outcome of the division is a tie, as convener I will use my casting vote for the amendment.
Amendment 313 agreed to.
Amendment 2 moved—[Mark Ruskell].
The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Section 4—Interpretation of Part
Amendments 60 and 200 not moved.
Amendment 3 moved—[Mark Ruskell].
The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Against
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
I suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes.
12:10 Meeting suspended.
Welcome back. As convener, I have decided to bring a halt to the proceedings. The next part of the bill that we will consider is a stand-alone part on national parks. I do not want to curtail any debate that might take place, so I will close the meeting now and we will resume our stage 2 consideration next week.
Meeting closed at 12:14.Previous
Subordinate Legislation