Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will make a little bit more ground first.

Something called Panacur was originally put on medicated grit; now, flubendazole is used, and it requires a veterinary prescription. People cannot just buy it and put it out.

I am happy to take an intervention from Ms Harper now.

I am just saying that my understanding of the amendment is that it would restrict what muirburn can be used for to reducing fuel loads. I am not sure that I have misunderstood that—although I may have done—but that is the point that I have come up with.

A licence for 10 years is entirely appropriate, unless the Government decides that, for environmental reasons, it should be less. I would be surprised if the minister did not want to accept that proposal or at least meet me to discuss it further.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 174 chimes with something that I said earlier. I remind members that it is often people who practise muirburn who have the best equipment to fight wildfires. Argocats get people and firefighting equipment up on the hill. Sadly but unsurprisingly, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service does not have access to all that equipment, because it might cost between £45,000 and £50,000 to equip an Argocat. It therefore seems entirely appropriate for firefighters, who often work beside gamekeepers and moorland managers, to go on the same muirburn course, so that they can work together. If that does nothing else, it will foster good relations and create greater understanding. For that reason alone, I support Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 174.

With amendment 31, I suggest that a new section be introduced to the bill. There is a reason behind that, and bizarrely enough it was driven by the Crofting Law Group, which we discussed in the previous session of Parliament. The Government promised to introduce a bill to reform crofting law, but it has failed to do that. With my amendments in the group, I am trying to update the Government’s approach, as it seems to be intent on working in the old way.

I encourage the Government to create a register of muirburn licences that is available for people to look at online. Making it available for public inspection would make it more open. I also suggest to the Government that it should drop the rather old-fashioned and outdated approach of demanding that adverts about muirburn be placed in newspapers. We all know, and the Scottish Crofting Federation has argued eloquently, that placing adverts in newspapers is extremely expensive and they are not read by many people. A lot of people miss the advertisements in local papers because they do not look at that section. There is a need for the Government to be conscious of the requirement for such adverts and their cost, which is why I lodged amendment 37.

To me, it seems logical to have open access to a clear online register that will not lead to people incurring massive costs. I am not sure what there is not to like about the proposal. I look forward to hearing from the minister why he thinks that it is a bad idea.

I move amendment 31.

The Bute house agreement calls for more honesty, openness and transparency—

It is always a pleasure to listen to the minister telling me why I am wrong. It is probably disappointing for him to hear that I am going to agree with him on pressing amendment 32—it might be the end of his ministerial career.

I believe that work is going on. However, I am minded to suggest that further work is required to ensure that the code is accepted by all people who use the practice of muirburn. I will work with Rhoda Grant to see whether there is a way in which we can ensure that everyone accepts the code and there is a majority decision, rather than just an unclear arbitrary decision.

On amendments 33 and 34, I still believe that revising the code every 10 years rather than every five years is appropriate, otherwise we would just finish off one code and start the next one.

I am sorry if I have destroyed your career, minister, but I will not press amendment 32.

Amendment 32, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 163 moved—[Rhoda Grant].

Before the meeting, we laughed about the fact that Ariane Burgess and I agree on some things. I agree that peat depth is not the relevant factor, because we are not burning peat, but I believe that carrying out muirburn on shallow peats is bad, because it encourages drying out. Usually, shallow peats are in areas of greater altitude. That is a huge generalisation but, in such areas, there is schist underneath the peat that is not fertile at all, and it is very difficult for the plants to regrow on it.

I lodged amendment 45—which would increase the depth that is used in the definition from 40cm to 60cm—as a probing amendment. It was interesting that, when I lodged the amendment, I was absolutely slated by people who thought that it was amusing to say that I had no experience of what I was talking about. I am probably one of the few members in the Parliament who has been a practitioner and has carried out muirburn. Not understanding the parliamentary process for probing amendments is deeply unhelpful, and it should not be encouraged.

The point of my amendment is to try to work out what the minister thinks is being burned, because it is not the peat that is being burned but the vegetation that is on top of the peat. We have all seen the demonstrations of quick fires and slow fires across peatland. A quick fire can burn over the surface of the soil; it might not even melt a bar of chocolate if it was sufficiently quick. In fact, I have seen fires on heaths burn quickly enough to pass through without damaging fence posts or remove the galvanised coating on the wire around the heathland.

Amendment 45 is a probing amendment. I want to know why the minister feels that the depth of the peat is the prerequisite for defining peatland and muirburn.

I am slightly taken with the minister’s amendment 77, but I am concerned that the word “heath” could encompass a lot of crofting ground where there might be grassland improvement, because, by definition, heath means acidic soils with low fertility. That might include some areas on common grazings, where muirburn might be considered, and that would automatically be encompassed by the legislation.

I am interested to hear the minister’s response to my probing amendment 45 and an acceptance of the fact that it is not the depth of peat that is relevant but the actions that are being carried out on the surface.

I absolutely agree that things have changed. When I was younger—which might seem like many years ago—we were paid to put in grips across moorland to drain the peatland to make it easier to graze. We are now being paid to put it back to the way it was. We have come full circle, but we still need to carry out muirburn to control the vegetation.

Yes.

Amendment 17 moved—[Edward Mountain].

I am sorry, Ms Harper, but I took quite a long intervention from you earlier.

I have explained that medicated grit cannot be used or acquired without significant controls. I accept that it might be said that it could be used, but I do not think that things should go any further than that.

I believe that Mr Smyth’s amendments 138 and 139 are too restrictive and prescriptive. How should the taking or killing of wild birds be carried out

“prioritising methods with the least negative animal welfare impact”?

Does that mean shooting them? Does it mean trapping animals? Obviously, that would not be birds, because they cannot be trapped except in live traps, so they cannot be killed. We have established ways of trapping animals and killing birds, which in most cases involves a shotgun or a rifle. I do not know how to make things more highly controlled than that. People could be put through shooting tests to see whether they can point a rifle in the right direction. However, every time a person fires a rifle or a shotgun, they aim to kill the thing that they are firing at; they do not aim to make it suffer. Therefore, I am not sure how amendment 138 would help.

Amendment 139 begs the question how much we want to micromanage the control of predators. Do we want to suggest how and when to do that? Do we want to suggest that people can only put a trap in a ditch in a box, as covered by the spring trap legislation, and that that can be done only at a certain time of year on a particular moor or bit of ground that is subject to a management plan? I simply do not see how that would work.

In most cases, the reason why a predator is being controlled is to allow other species to flourish. I am not sure whether Mr Smyth is suggesting through his amendment that people should trap an animal and release it somewhere else. I fear that taking an animal from one location to another would require a licence. Is Mr Smyth suggesting licensing the moving of predator species from one place to another? I am not sure whether that is what the minister would like to see or whether that is entirely reasonable.

On that note, I am happy to conclude my remarks, convener.