Seòmar agus comataidhean

My amendment 167 seeks to set the close of the muirburn season as 15 March. As we have heard, various dates have been suggested this evening, which demonstrates the degree of change that we are seeing in the seasons and the effects on wildlife. My amendment would set an earlier end to muirburn season as proposed in the bill to avoid the season overlapping with the breeding seasons of several bird species that routinely nest on moorland.

The definition of peat was discussed during stage 1, and that is reflected in a variety of amendments, but why is there a focus on peat depth at all? The International Union for Conservation of Nature’s peatland programme is clear that all peat—from the shallowest peaty soils to deep layers—is vital and an integral part of the overall health of peatlands. In fact, the shallowest of peat soils, those less than 30cm in depth, are arguably the most in need of protection, being more susceptible to damage and drying out.

Early in my discussions about the bill with stakeholders, I was surprised to learn that the current definition, which is based on depth, stems from post-war land management strategies when Britain was looking to maximise its natural resources and agricultural productivity. It is based not on ecological understanding or rooted in climate adaptation practices, but rather in an arbitrary assessment that is based on what was required over half a century ago.

Amendment 169 seeks to remove that arbitrary definition entirely, removing the link between the depth of peat and its status under the licensing regime that is set out in the bill. All peat soils would therefore be subject to the muirburn licensing regime. In a time of climate emergency, we should be looking to maximise the protection of peat and not be undercutting the work that other parts of the Scottish Government are doing to fund the restoration of peatlands.

I am well aware that there will not be consensus on my amendment. I await the minister’s response, but I believe that it is important to highlight how peatland is defined.

On Monday, we had a fantastic session with farmers and crofters. It was insightful to talk to folk who are doing the work on the ground. One point that came up in the conversation was that farmers make something that, at the other end of the process, gets sold on to businesses that are considering their scope through emissions.

In your thinking about the objectives, how much consideration did you give to things such as the Sustainable Markets Initiative? I am not sure whether you are aware of it, but it has an agribusiness task force of Fortune 500 companies, which, globally, has decided on five metrics—greenhouse gases, water use, the efficiency of nitrogen and a couple of others. I realised that the committee had not talked about that, but it came up on Monday.

How much have you thought about the fact that we are using public money to support farmers and crofters to become more sustainable, yet some of them sell into global markets? Did you take that into account in thinking about the need for flexibility in the bill? Is that why you think that the bill needs to be a framework bill?

Sticking with the metrics piece, something else that came up was an anecdote from a farmer who has to do a carbon footprinting audit for one part of their business and a different one for another part. When the farmer shared that information, it spawned input from a whole lot of other people, so there is something there that we need to look at. How do we align that? Farmers are having to look one way to meet the needs of one company or industry and then another way for another. Other things came up around alignment with environmental metrics and biodiversity accounting and audits. Somebody said that they felt that, if they invited different companies to come and do their biodiversity audit, they would get different answers. How do we get to a place where there is clarity across the piece as to measurements and how we track things such as that?

Okay—thanks. On Monday, we spoke to a crofter. Jo Hunt is an economist turned grower and vegetable-box producer. He worked out that support could be extended to the 100 market gardens in Scotland, with no actual additional demand on the public purse, by redistributing the basic payments. Currently, 68 per cent of basic payments go to 10 per cent of farms. Will you outline your current thinking about the capping, tapering and front loading that could help to redistribute payments in the future payment framework?

John Kerr was at a previous meeting when we looked at the bill with the bill team. He brought to my understanding the Government’s thinking that the money allocation is not fixed; it is a process because it is part of the just transition and will be evolving.

No, it was not.

You can come back to it.

Okay, but do you have any sense of the timing? You do not want a certain date, but will it be within a certain number of years or a certain—

I might not have picked you up correctly, but part of my question was about new schemes or new versions of schemes. I guess that this touches on Alasdair Allan’s question, which was about the Scottish statutory instruments. Is it your intention to create entirely new regulations to govern those schemes? If so, how will the powers be set out and how are you going to use them in your work on the rural support plan?

That would be very welcome. The clear message that I get is that we need to pay strong attention to the route map, because that is telling us where we are going.