Seòmar agus comataidhean

We are halfway through the financial year, and £3 million of island programme money has not yet been allocated. Why is that?

Okay.

Section 5(6) provides that Scottish ministers do not need to publish a revised code of practice if they

“consider that none of the revisions materially alters the effect of the code of practice.”

My amendment 72 would remove that section from the bill, having the effect that any revised code of practice would have to be published and made available to the public. I am grateful for Government support for the amendment.

I would be willing to withdraw amendment 64 and to hold off until stage 3 if the minister is willing to have some discussion on these points to tidy up the bill.

My understanding of what the minister said is that none of that is legally binding other than if it is put in the bill. Those bits are being removed because they would become crucial and people would have to comply with them or people would not comply with the code.

Would you agree that SEPA is better placed than Marine Scotland?

Do you feel that things are okay as they are, with SEPA apparently taking a lead, or do you believe that the role should be given to local authorities? Do local authorities have the most important part of the consenting process?

Are you saying that we have more to gain through the system that we have in place rather than trying to streamline further, because we would lose elements if we did that?

Okay. Rachel, would you agree with that?

This group of amendments deals with minor and technical aspects of the proposed legislation.

The first four amendments are technical adjustments to the bill’s wording. My amendments, which were proposed by the Law Society of Scotland, seek to change certain phrases such as “is to” and “are then to” to “must”, to make the bill clearer and make it easier for members of the public to understand its requirements and intentions. They would remove ambiguity and strengthen the bill.

On amendment 54, section 12, on interpretation of the legislation, sets out definitions covering central aspects of the bill, such as the word “advertise” and the phrases “first owner” and “police officer”. The intention of the section is to define the meaning of those terms, but amendment 54 seeks to remove it entirely.

My amendments in this group seek to ensure that the bill is implemented as intended and to remove ambiguity of language and clear up interpretation. I ask members to support my amendments at this time.

I move amendment 64.