Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 146 is in a similar vein to Kate Forbes’s amendment 88; mine also covers muirburn on both peatland and non-peatland. The wildfire in Cannich last year highlights the need to manage fuel load on peat as well as in other areas. It seems wrong to me that we spend money on restoring peatland only for those efforts to be ruined by an intensely burning wildfire. It is sometimes the case, therefore, that muirburn is the most effective way to manage the fuel load, and it should be used as such. Perhaps there should be a duty on land managers to manage fuel load in order to mitigate the harm caused by wildfire. The problem is that the science in this area is not yet conclusive, which makes it challenging to legislate. We need to ensure that what we put down in legislation can be adapted to fit future scientific knowledge. That said, it seems clear that leaving a large fuel load on land is dangerous. Leaving it on degraded peat is disastrous, and we have heard and seen evidence to show that muirburn has caused little harm on well-maintained peatland. My amendments acknowledge the role to be played by muirburn in peat restoration and protection.

Amendment 149 ensures that any regulations that modify the list of purposes for muirburn are subject to full consultation and scrutiny by the committee. I hope that that would give members some confidence in ensuring that any changes are fully scrutinised and will be in line with the science at the time.

I get it that stakeholders are involved, but it does not say anywhere that the stakeholders have to agree to the code. That is why I am looking for better scrutiny. As with my other amendments, I would be happy if the minister would discuss that ahead of stage 3 to find out whether we can put something in place that will ensure that Parliament has some level of scrutiny so that, if there are concerns about the code, they could at least be heard.

So, drawing down any support, even in tier 1 and tier 2, could be subject to compliance with the code of practice; therefore, it is prescriptive.

Which would be the code of practice. We are going round in circles. The code of practice is important.

The policy memorandum states:

“The recommendations in the Code of Practice are expected to underpin good agricultural and environmental practice, as set out in conditions for area-based support for farmers.”

That is the crucial bit. People have to comply with the code of practice to get area-based support. It might not be said that everyone must do everything to the letter in the code of practice, but they will have to follow the code of practice as it pertains to their land to access area-based payments. That means that it is crucial that people understand what is contained in the code of practice and that they agree that it is practicable, otherwise they will not get their area-based payments. That is big.

Amendment 168 would ensure that any changes to the muirburn season were properly scrutinised. I assume that the powers to change the muirburn season will be used in response to the impacts of climate change on nesting birds. It is right that such changes should be made, but it is also right that proposed changes should be laid before Parliament and consulted on widely.

Many members have tried to adjust the muirburn season in the bill. I have sympathy for Kate Forbes’s amendment 102, as we have heard that birds are already nesting by the end of March. Other members have sought to add flexibility to the season. I have some sympathy with that, given the impact of climate change, but I am concerned that, without robust scrutiny, such flexibilities could be abused. I believe that it would be better to deal with changes to the season under the code rather than in the bill. Therefore, my amendment 168 seeks to ensure that changes to the muirburn season will be properly scrutinised.

Will the minister take an intervention?

As my colleagues have done, I could ask that the minister might be willing to meet me before stage 3 to discuss the issue further, and I sincerely hope that he will do so, but perhaps he will also put on the record some assurance that any changes will be widely consulted on with all stakeholders, who will have an input to any changes that might take place.

I am a little concerned that only the affirmative procedure will be used, given that there will be people who will need to be consulted. What reassurance can the minister give me that an order will be widely consulted on before it is put in front of the Parliament?

There is quite a lot of concern that people could break the law on the land pertaining to the licence without the knowledge or agreement of the licence holder. It is about finding the right balance. Can the minister give assurances that NatureScot would have to be reasonably convinced that an offence had been carried out under the direction of the licence holder? They could obviously ignore things and turn a blind eye, which I believe would leave them guilty as well. However, can you give an assurance that, when offences are carried out explicitly against the will of the landowner, they will not have their licence revoked?