Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is important to remember the purpose of having a muirburn season, which is to ensure that muirburn is carried out only when the risk of damage to economic, social and environmental interests is at a minimum. There are different permitted reasons for carrying out muirburn, depending on whether it is on peatland and whether it is carried out during the prescribed season.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 183 and 184 would extend the period for which a muirburn licence can be granted until 30 April. They would also allow licences to be granted for additional purposes between 1 and 30 April. As we have heard from Kate Forbes, we have very good reason to bring forward the start of the close season to protect ground-nesting birds. Therefore, to accept an amendment that would push that season back to the end of April, albeit in limited circumstances, would not be appropriate or good practice. I do not believe that we have been provided with any evidence to support the changes to the dates or the purposes for which muirburn can be undertaken that are proposed by Rachael Hamilton in her amendments.

However, I understand that the science around muirburn is constantly evolving, and that the impacts of climate change mean that we may need to adapt our approach in the future. That is why section 16(3) of the bill gives the Scottish ministers a power to amend the muirburn season if they think it

“necessary or expedient to do so”

for the purpose of

“conserving, restoring, enhancing or managing the natural environment”,

preventing the risk of wildfires or in relation to climate change.

Because the power is subject to the affirmative procedure, Parliament will have an enhanced scrutiny role, and there is a requirement to consult those who are likely to be interested in or affected by the making of muirburn, which will ensure that the power is used proportionately. For those reasons, I will not support amendments 183 and 184, and I encourage committee members to vote against them.

I turn to Edward Mountain’s amendments. Amendment 39 would also allow the muirburn season to

“be extended to 30 April”,

in this case

“with the permission of the landowner.”

That would seem to delegate the authority to the landowner rather than to ministers or to NatureScot, which I find rather strange. For the same reasons that I gave in relation to Rachael Hamilton’s amendments on extending the muirburn season, I cannot support amendment 39, and I encourage the committee to vote against it—[Interruption.] I ask members to allow me to finish these points.

Amendments 25 and 26 seek to change the muirburn licence provisions so that a licence can be granted for muirburn outside

“the muirburn season only for the purposes of ... conserving, restoring, enhancing or managing the natural environment ... research, or ... public safety.”

However, I think that those amendments have been lodged as the result of a misunderstanding of the bill. Section 11(2) sets out the only purposes for which muirburn can be licensed during the open season, so an out-of-season licence would be available for any purposes that are not explicitly mentioned in section 11(2).

The bill already allows a licence for out-of-season muirburn to be granted on non-peatland for the purposes of

“conserving, restoring, enhancing or managing the natural environment ... preventing, or reducing the risk of, wildfires causing harm to people or damage to property”

or “research”.

Mr Mountain’s amendments therefore duplicate provisions for research and conserving, restoring, managing or enhancing the natural environment on non-peatland for out-of-season muirburn. Examples of that might be to create a suitable seedbed at the appropriate time of year for the natural regeneration of nearby native woodland or to research the effects of muirburn on dry heath in early September.

With regard to public safety, that was previously included in the Hill Farming Act 1946 as a reason for which an out-of-season muirburn licence could be granted. However, in creating the new muirburn provisions for the bill, we took the view that “public safety” is a very wide term that could be interpreted in many different ways, so the narrower provision for

“preventing, or reducing ... wildfires causing harm to people or damage to property”

was introduced.

No.

Thank you.

I agree with that summing up.

Amendment 61 agreed to.

As I have just said, under the affirmative procedure, an order can be brought to the Parliament for consideration.

The power to add additional game birds to a section 16AA licence was considered by both this committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which found the powers

“acceptable in principle”

and was

“content that it is subject to the affirmative procedure.”

The RAI Committee said:

“The Committee notes, and agrees with, the DPLRC’s conclusion that the ... powers ... are acceptable and that the affirmative procedure would be appropriate.”

The Scottish ministers would also be required to consult before adding any birds. This committee agreed to the principles of section 7 in previous sessions.

Now, this really is an unusual situation, as I must now address amendments as the lead minister for the bill and, first of all, thank Emma Harper for speaking on my behalf to the amendments that I lodged previously.

In my new position as Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, I have received a great deal of advice on the amendments to the bill, and, as a member of this committee, I heard all the evidence from stakeholders at stage 1. I have tried to use the new advice to better understand the bill and all the concerns and issues that surround it.

I originally lodged amendments 85, 86 and 87 for the reasons that Emma Harper has set out. I think that those reasons still hold. However—and this is an example of how my understanding has developed—I can now see ways of improving the amendments to ensure that we get the most out of any reporting requirements that we include in the bill.

Monitoring and reporting requirements must be weighed up to balance the value that they provide against the resources that they take to fulfil. That said, the Scottish Government is committed to an open and transparent approach to legislation, and, where additional reporting serves a useful purpose, it should be supported.

The bill has been introduced in part to address raptor persecution on land managed for grouse shooting, and the section in the bill on licensing provisions is the approach that we have taken to do that. The three raptor species populations identified in the Werritty review—the golden eagle, the hen harrier and the peregrine falcon—are significantly impacted, as Emma Harper has said. To assess the effectiveness of the bill in reducing raptor persecution on those species, regular monitoring and surveillance of their populations will be essential. Some monitoring of that kind is already undertaken by the Scottish Raptor Study Group, albeit at longer intervals than is provided for in the amendments.

Including a requirement to undertake an assessment of raptor populations is a reasonable suggestion. However, what I would like to do, and what I think would be helpful, is to discuss the requirements further with NatureScot and relevant stakeholders to understand their ability to undertake the additional monitoring and reporting. I would also like to ensure that the amendments are framed in a way that is consistent with the language used in the rest of the bill. I therefore request that Emma Harper not press amendment 85 or move amendments 86 and 87 and that she allow me to have those discussions and to bring back better versions of the amendments at stage 3.

I welcome the debate on this group. The proposed step is a big one for us to take, and it is right that we should consider it carefully. I think that we have struck the right balance, and that the necessary checks and safeguards are in place to ensure that the protocol between the SSPCA and Police Scotland is right. Therefore, I think that we are in the right place on this issue.

I am happy to discuss amendment 14, and I apologise—that was my mistake.

Amendment 16 requires NatureScot to consult persons who are likely to be interested in and affected by the courses. It is likely that NatureScot may consult relevant parties in creating and approving a training course. However, as the relevant licensing authority, it is chiefly responsible for ensuring that any approved training course covers the standards that are required by the bill and other pieces of legislation. Therefore, it has to be given discretion on what the training course will be, but absolutely in consultation with the practitioners, as I have already stated.

Please bear with me, convener, as I sort out my papers.

Amendments 59, 60, 69 and 70 are technical amendments that have no practical impact or effect on the provisions of the bill. They simply correct the grammar of provisions that have been amended by the bill to take account of those amendments.

Amendments 59 and 60 remove erroneous conjunctions in section 4(7), and amendments 69 and 70 remove a similar error in section 7(5). I encourage all committee members to vote for the amendments.

I move amendment 59.

Amendment 59 agreed to.

Amendment 60 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

Section 6—Killing and taking of certain birds permitted only on land with section 16AA licence

I will take it.