Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is not regulation; it is a code of practice, which will be worked on by NatureScot and in collaboration with the stakeholders who will be applying for the licences.

There are a couple of things there. First, people will be applying for licences, which will be granted when they provide certain information. That process will be quite straightforward. It is not the case that we can say, “If you do not follow the code of practice, you will not get a licence.” People will have a licence and, if complaints are made that they are not following the code of practice, the idea is that NatureScot will liaise with the landowner or land manager in order to ascertain what parts of the code of practice they are not complying with and to establish what it can do by way of advice or assistance to get them to comply with the code. That seems to be the philosophy from NatureScot: it wants to liaise and work with land managers so that it can get them up to code, so to speak, and so that what you are suggesting does not come to pass.

Your second point was about the idea of a disproportionate, almost knee-jerk, reaction from NatureScot, suspending licences based on very little information. I just cannot see that coming to pass. NatureScot would lose credibility very quickly. It is an organisation—it used to be Scottish Natural Heritage—that people know well and it has been working and operating in Scotland for many years. On the whole, it has very good relationships with land managers and the shooting estates.

I get that we are arguing back and forth, but NatureScot has to have the flexibility to be able to act in order to prevent any further damage from happening. The line is in the bill to allow it to do that. It can take a while for a police investigation to take place, but if something so egregious and severe has happened that NatureScot feels that it should take that action, it needs to be able to do that. Whether it will ever do that is another matter, but it needs to have the flexibility to be able to. That is why that line is in the bill.

I do not really get what you are asking, so I will ask Hugh Dignon to come in. From my understanding of what you have said, you do not have the right understanding.

It would not be the SSPCA that would establish an investigation into wildlife crime. It would be the police that would conduct such an investigation.

No, that would be the police—and, indeed, NatureScot, as the issuer of the licence. I see what you are getting at, but the SSPCA cannot make claims that will revoke or suspend any licences. NatureScot is the licence supplier; it has the licensing scheme and will work closely with the police in that respect.

As I have said, I see what you are getting at, but I do not think that it is a concern. In effect, what the SSPCA will be able to do, if it has already been called to an area and sees evidence of a wildlife crime, is that as part of that call—which could be about something completely different—it can gather that evidence and supply it to the police.

The SSPCA was saying, “Give us these powers or don’t.” However, the SSPCA and others have been pointing out the issue of evidence being able to be destroyed or removed.

If people declare that they want to do muirburn on peatland, that will be part of the licence. Basically, we are talking about one licence, and there will be a section that asks, “Are you going to do this on peatland?” I cannot say how the form will look, but I think that that needs to be taken into consideration.

I expect that NatureScot will have guidance in place for crofters or anyone else who applies for a licence, but people will also be able to contact NatureScot and ask for advice if they are unsure in any situation. I do not want licence applications that go in to be rubber-stamped “No” when there can be communication between the licence applicant and the licensing organisation.

Yes. That is where I see NatureScot providing advice to individual applicants, which could really help. We are proposing a depth of 40cm, and guidance will be given on how people can measure the depth of peat and declare what they believe it to be. People will be able to liaise with NatureScot and say, “I’m proposing to do some muirburn on this piece of land, but I’m not entirely sure how deep the peat is across the area. Can you give me some guidance?” NatureScot will respond to that and help them. I certainly hope to see that as part of the licensing arrangements. It is not a question of someone putting in an application and NatureScot saying, “Hang on a second,” because it does not believe—

I again point to the fact that NatureScot will take forward the development of the licensing scheme, but I think that it said in evidence to the committee that it will seek a declaration on whether the land is peatland within the one licence. I cannot see that changing. It certainly seems to be the position that NatureScot has set out.