Seòmar agus comataidhean

First of all, I absolutely understand Mark Ruskell’s frustration. I get that this was a previous Government commitment, but I assure the committee that, as a Government, we are absolutely committed to progressing with an effective ban on the sale of peat for horticulture in Scotland.

Indeed, we are making steady progress towards that. We had a consultation in 2023, and there was widespread support from retail and commercial horticulture; indeed, UK horticulture now uses a third less peat than it did in 2011. Since that consultation, we have engaged widely with the sector to inform the scope and timings of any ban in Scotland. I have visited nurseries that use peat both on a commercial basis and in direct sales to the public; there have been round-table discussions; and research commissioned by ClimateXChange that is soon to be published focuses on the challenges faced by commercial horticulture, in particular, as it plans its transition. I know that Rachael Hamilton does not like that word, but the fact is that we are transitioning away from the use of peat.

However—and the amendments allude to this—the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 would have an effect on such a ban. As drafted, the amendments would commit Scotland, in law, either to the vagaries of securing an internal market act exclusion or to playing the waiting game while the rest of the UK brought regulations into force on the same date. Such approaches would be neither advisable nor desirable; they would not provide the certainty that we need and, crucially, they would not supply certainty to the sector either.

Local authorities have the ability to do things at the moment—if the member will allow me to continue making some points on this, that might make the position clearer.

We have talked about the issues that have arisen after the Dava fire. As a result, Siobhian Brown and I committed to developing the Scottish wildfire strategic action plan, which was informed by the recent wildfire summit, cross-sector engagement and the ministerial roundtable with MSPs.

The action plan will include prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. It will also consider whether any legislative changes would be required to support the actions within it. The point that I am trying to make is that the strategic action plan will carry a lot of weight.

We should not be pre-empting the work of that action plan, and, crucially, we need to consult local authorities and other partners as we go through the process. We expect to explore the issue further as part of the development of the wildfire action plan.

I cannot therefore support amendment 256, but we will return to the issue in the future, and I am happy to meet Ms Roddick to discuss it further ahead of stage 3, so that we can fully consider the most appropriate approach to tackling the issue. I therefore ask Ms Roddick not to press amendment 256. If she does press it, I ask the committee not to support it.

On amendments 325 and 326, I fully understand practitioners’ concerns about muirburn, especially in the context of this year’s wildfires. That is why we announced a delay to the licensing scheme until the start of autumn 2026. That delay will give us the time to consider carefully how the necessary changes to licensing can be made in a way that does not adversely affect our ability to prevent and respond to wildfires.

On amendment 325, some parts of Scotland are uniquely vulnerable. Our rural terrain and the rich biodiversity are ecologically precious and highly susceptible to fire. When peatlands burn, they release large amounts of carbon, which undoes years of work in a matter of hours. Mr Eagle’s amendment would mean that there would be no difference in how licences for muirburn in peatlands or non-peatlands were treated. We remain committed to ensuring that muirburn is carried out appropriately and safely, in a manner that ensures that the environment does not suffer as a result.

I apologise, convener, but this in itself is ludicrous. At the summit, various experimental things were put forward, with people saying, “Yes, this was tried. Sometimes, this was effective.” That is why it was supposed to be a closed-door discussion—so that we did not have this kind of pantomime, because what we are getting is unfinished decision making put into the public domain as the thing that is going to happen.

I get that Mr Ross is very passionate about the matter. I suggest that we can find solutions if we have reasoned and proper discussions and debates. I have made that offer to Mr Ross and Mr Ewing—and I make it to Mr Eagle, if he would want to do that—but let us try to keep some focus on what we are trying to do. To continue to reiterate the arguments that were made during the statement, to denigrate an organisation that is doing a very difficult job in very difficult circumstances and, at the same time, to try to turn this into some kind of show is just ludicrous.

I asked Mr Ross to give us some time to go through the process. He has already accepted that I take the matter very seriously and that I am working very hard to find solutions, so let us find the solutions without this show.

I will.

Will the member take an intervention?

I was actually sitting in a lay-by at the time of the conversation.

I make this point purely on the basis that I absolutely agree that some of the responses that came back to members of the public and to people who were applying for licences were absolutely ludicrous—there is no dispute about that. However, that comment applied to one or two of the responses to the hundreds of licence applications that were made. I dispute Mr Ross’s characterisation of the organisation as incompetent. It is far from being incompetent, and it must take account of all the issues, not just an individual’s experience at one time.

It has not acted illegally. It has clarified that nuisance is not the same as health and safety.

Under the current legislation, it cannot do that. I cannot remember the exact wording, so this is perhaps not as it is set out in the act, but we cannot revert to what was done previously, because the act, or the protection, does not allow it. That is why NatureScot had to change its approach.

Given that it is mid-December, I suggest that there is time before the next breeding season, because NatureScot will be working at pace with local authorities to work out what it will do for next season. As I said, we can give a ministerial instruction to require NatureScot to do something, and that work is on-going. The fact that we are not in the breeding season right now indicates to me that there is still time for NatureScot to deliver those plans.