Seòmar agus comataidhean

Cabinet secretary, you are not really giving us any reassurance on this incredibly important issue. I think that we all understand why you have not put a definition in the bill, but what you are saying would sway us towards having a definition in the bill. You are saying that the definition in the code of practice will not be scrutinised but that it should and would underpin the future development of how people access funding.

I ask again, how will the code of practice be consulted on and overseen? From what I can figure out from the bill, it will be laid before Parliament for no other reason than for information. Should the definition be scrutinised by Parliament much more thoroughly?

I am glad that the minister has heard the concerns about this part of the bill. I understand the frustration that is felt by SSPCA officers who are called out because of animal welfare concerns and who are unable to do anything, despite seeing illegal activities. However, there are also concerns about empowering a third sector organisation to provide law enforcement.

I lodged my amendments 141 and 142 to ensure that the issue will be looked at and that there will be no unintended consequences, but I take on board what the minister has said about considering the matter before stage 3. I will be pleased to do that, so I do not intend to move amendments 141 and 142. I look forward to those discussions.

I do not think that anyone disagrees with that. The issue is about who will oversee that, what scrutiny is available, and what changes can be made to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. I do not think that the very light touch in the bill is sufficient.

I understand what the minister says about burdens on the Parliament. However, the trouble is that we have so much enabling legislation, in which powers are set out to introduce measures through secondary legislation, but without a promise of scrutiny on the use of those powers. Given that I have lodged a number of amendments in the same vein, is the minister willing to meet me to discuss an amendment at stage 3 that would make sure that there is adequate consultation, that stakeholders are consulted and that there is scrutiny of any changes through secondary legislation? That would give people confidence that they will not be railroaded into anything that does not work properly for the industry.

My amendment 151 refers to issues that are to be taken into account when granting a muirburn licence on peat. The bill states that muirburn can be allowed only if there is no other option for the management of a fuel load. In evidence, we heard that although cutting kills plants, it does not deal with the fuel load and, indeed, decaying vegetation can often be more flammable. Therefore, my amendment would allow muirburn on peatland for managing fuel load.

Amendment 151 aims to ensure that the prevention of wildfires is taken into consideration in considering a muirburn licence application. Alasdair Allan’s amendment 97, which he has just spoken to, seeks to do a similar thing. I believe that both amendments would work well together, and I urge members to support them.

I would like clarification. You talked about consultation that takes place regularly and said that the Scottish Government would normally publish the results of such consultation. Are you committing to doing that in the future, regardless of those amendments?

I want to follow up on what people were asking about with regard to scrutiny of the support plan. There are two legislative routes, using either an affirmative instrument or a negative instrument. With the first, we would have to vote for it; with the second, we would have to move against it. Given the importance of the plan, should we be asking for a super-affirmative procedure, whereby we ask Government to lay a draft of the instrument first so that the committee can comment and consult more widely on it, and report back to Government before it submits the final instrument? That would allow time for people to feed back. Would people support that?

It seems to me that we are talking about things that should be funded from other budgets that the bill does not really mention. However, to come back to the bill—which, after all, is what we are looking at—I wonder whether there is anything that we can put into it that would ensure fairer funding for rural areas. Lots of the things that we are talking about today would, if we were talking about urban areas, come from a different pot of money. Is there anything that we can do in the bill to ensure fairer funding for rural areas from other pots, instead of trying to carve up this particular amount of money among the competing—but real—needs in rural communities?

The bill is a framework bill, so an awful lot of legislation will come from it. Regulations could enable changes to be made to schedule 1 in relation to who can get support under the bill. Those regulations will be subject to the negative procedure. Is that the right approach? For those who do not know, the negative procedure means that the instrument is lodged in the Parliament but that, if members are against an element of it, they have to vote it down in its entirety; they cannot amend it. It is a “take it or leave it” procedure. Is that adequate, or should that be changed to enable greater scrutiny and consultation on any changes that are proposed?

No concerns about that have been expressed to us, but it could be that, when the guidance is changed in the future, we do get concerns about it, especially when there is no consultation with the committee. What would we do in that case? Would the minister appear in front of the committee to discuss those concerns?