Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendments 31, 36 and 43 set out a new section that would require NatureScot to keep a public register of muirburn licences that are granted under part 2 of the bill. Notices of muirburn activity would be placed in that register.

I am sympathetic to the intentions behind the amendments, and I agree that transparency is important not only in respect of the way in which the licences will operate, but for all the licences that are operated by NatureScot. That is why, under the Bute house agreement, we have made a commitment to

“review the wider species licensing system ... and the introduction of a public register of licenses to improve transparency, bearing in mind data protection and safety of licence holders.”

Therefore, I think that it would be better to allow for the review that has just been announced to be undertaken and for options to be presented for creating a register that would potentially cover a range of licences. That would seem to be a more appropriate way to proceed, rather than providing in the amendments for a register only in respect of muirburn licences that are granted under the bill. Such an approach would also allow me to fully consider any general data protection regulation implications before creating any register.

I hope that, for that reason, Edward Mountain will not press or move the amendments. If he does so, I encourage the committee to vote against them.

It has been clear all along that medicated grit was always going to be part of a code of practice, as that was one of the matters considered by the Werritty review. It recommended that the Scottish Government should publish a code of practice, which is now in train. It was always the Scottish Government’s intention that guidance on the use of medicated grit would be included in the code of practice for grouse moor management as it was developed.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 160 seeks to change the definition of “relevant person” for the purpose of the muirburn licence scheme. I understand that the amendment seeks to ensure that only offences committed by people who are involved in the management of the land for the purposes of making muirburn can result in a licence being modified, suspended or revoked. However, NatureScot already has the discretion not to suspend a licence—we have argued that point already. Therefore, a licence holder may not be sanctioned as a result of a person who is involved in managing the land to which the muirburn licence relates committing a relevant offence.

Unfortunately, amendment 160 would lead to loopholes that could easily be used to circumvent the provisions and intentions of the bill. For example, when someone involved in managing the land but not for muirburn purposes committed an offence by making muirburn that was not in accordance with the licence, the amendment would mean that that illegal muirburn would not lead to the licence being suspended or revoked unless the person who was managing the land for the purpose of muirburn caused or permitted it.

I have some difficulty with the potential outcome for workers on the land. Should an employee be the one who commits an offence, they should not be the only one who bears the consequences—the landowner or the manager should, too. Otherwise, employees could be in a much more precarious position than they are in now.

The amendment would not result in good employment practice, with a lack of training, guidance or supervision, for example, being—or, in some cases, becoming—the norm. It is right and proper for employees to expect such support, and it is right and proper that licence holders should also bear the responsibility for offences that are committed by people they employ or otherwise allow to participate in land management.

I cannot support the amendment, and I encourage committee members to vote against it.

I agree. I also highlight the absolutely invaluable work of gamekeepers and associated industries to ensure that such wildfires are brought under control.

I understand why Kate Forbes has lodged amendment 88. Like her, I want to ensure that the bill’s provisions on the purposes for which muirburn will be allowed in the future are as clear as possible. I agree that, when undertaken appropriately, with caution and planning, muirburn can be a tool to prevent and reduce the risk of wildfire. However, I do not consider amendment 88 to be necessary, because making muirburn for the purpose of

“preventing, or reducing the risk of, wildfires causing damage to habitats”

is covered by the existing purposes in the bill of

“managing the habitats of ... wildlife”

and

“managing the natural environment”.

I therefore ask Kate Forbes not to move amendment 88, which would allow me to consider the matter further ahead of stage 3 and to determine whether we can make the bill’s purposes clearer.

Similarly, amendments 144 to 146, in the name of Rhoda Grant, are unnecessary. The bill already includes, in section 10(2)(a) and (b), making muirburn for the purposes of

“preventing, or reducing the risk of, wildfires”,

which would include managing fuel loads to serve those purposes. Such detail could—and, indeed, should—be set out in the muirburn code. However, there is a risk that the changes to the wording that is proposed by amendments 144 to 146 might restrict the wildfire management purposes solely to managing fuel loads. If there were to be another use of muirburn to prevent or reduce the risk of wildfire it would no longer meet that licensable purpose. It is not immediately clear what amendments 144 to 146 offer over what is already in the bill. I therefore ask Rhoda Grant not to move them.

Amendment 23, in the name of Edward Mountain, which would allow muirburn to be undertaken on peatland to manage habitats for game birds or other wildlife, does not take into account the value of Scotland’s peatland. As they are currently stated in the bill, the purposes for undertaking muirburn on peatland are limited in recognition of the risk of serious and significant carbon emissions when burning either damages the peat or interferes with the natural carbon sequestration process that occurs on functioning peatlands.

Amendments 181 and 182 would insert a definition of moorland into the bill and would have the effect that a muirburn licence would not be needed to make muirburn on improved grassland or land suitable for arable cropping.

The Rural Stewardship Scheme (Scotland) Regulations 2001 provide definitions of “arable land” and “improved grassland” that clearly exclude heath or moorland. Heathland, or heather moorland, is defined instead as “rough grazings”. The amendments would not apply for the purposes of the provisions of the bill, but that provides background to what Edward Mountain is trying to do.

Gillian Martin has lodged amendments 76 and 77 to amend the definition of making muirburn in the bill to mirror the definition used in the Hill Farming Act 1946, which is the

“setting fire to or burning any heath or muir”.

That means that, should amendments 76 and 77 be agreed to, Edward Mountain’s amendments 181 and 182 would have no practical effect, as heath or muir would not include improved grassland or land suitable for arable cropping. Amendments 181 and 182 would, however, create a layer of complexity and possible confusion for muirburn applicants, because they would be dealing with two different definitions of what muirburn is and where it can be carried out.

In addition, the definition of moorland that amendment 182 offers is so wide that it could encompass anything that is not improved grassland or land suitable for arable cropping—for example, it could include forestry, roads and private gardens. It is clear that such a wide definition would not be practical.

For those reasons, I cannot support amendments 181 and 182, and I encourage committee members to vote against them.

It would be up to NatureScot and the grouse moor manager to have that conversation.

I thought that you said amendment 13.

My apologies, convener—that was entirely my mistake.

Amendment 37 would require the Scottish ministers, when specifying any additional method through which notice of making muirburn may be given, to have

“regard to the need for the cost of giving notice to be reasonable”.

The requirement to give notice of muirburn activity is not new, and the bill as it is currently drafted broadly replicates the existing requirements for giving notice, as set out in the Hill Farming Act 1946 and covered by the muirburn code.

I am unaware of any concerns or issues relating to the cost of giving notice of muirburn activity under the existing legislation. Notwithstanding that, we would always seek to ensure that any costs that individuals incurred to fulfil the requirements to give notice of muirburn were reasonable and proportionate.

I have no issue with amendment 37 being agreed to, although we would want to have a closer look at its framing ahead of stage 3 and potentially tidy it up in order to avoid unintended consequences and ensure that it is aligned with the approach that is taken in the rest of the bill.

I do not have that number to hand, but what I am going to say, if you allow me to finish, might put your mind at ease.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service regularly reviews training capacity against demand to ensure sufficient training capacity and investment in people and resources so that staff are competent in the roles that they are expected to undertake. In my view, it would be too prescriptive to amend the 2005 act to specifically mention muirburn, given that no other individual fire types are specified in it. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 174, and I ask members to vote against it.

In our 2023 programme for government, we committed to working with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to ensure that continuing priority is given to the implementation of its wildfire strategy. It has produced the strategy in partnership with various agencies and groups in the rural and land management sectors. As part of the strategy, the SFRS is adopting a burn suppression technique that is similar to those that are used in the new Mediterranean-style specialist wildfire units. The SFRS remains fully ready and able to respond to any wildfire that occurs across Scotland, and substantial investment has recently been made in rural areas to provide additional specialist wildfire equipment and personal protective equipment. The service’s planned spend over the three-year roll-out of its wildfire strategy is about £1.6 million. Although the SFRS is fully supportive of training for those undertaking muirburn, it does not support muirburn training being explicitly added to the 2005 act.

Amendment 175 would require that a report on the role of muirburn in relation to wildfires in Scotland be laid before the Parliament every two years. In my view, not only is that unnecessary but it would create an additional and onerous administrative and reporting burden on various organisations, including the SFRS and NatureScot. The SFRS already records and reports on fires through its incident reporting system inputs. It has also produced, in partnership with the Scottish Wildfire Forum, a wildfire strategy, which includes a commitment to review the distribution of wildfire danger assessments and to measure how effective they are in preventing wildfires.

On muirburn and its relationship to wildfire, NatureScot produced, in 2022, a comprehensive report in which it reviewed, assessed and critiqued the evidence base on the impacts of muirburn on wildfire prevention, carbon storage and biodiversity. The report covered decades of peer-reviewed academic literature on wildfire and muirburn, and it concluded that the evidence base on the impacts of muirburn on wildfire habitats and species is limited and sometimes contested. The report also highlighted that a number of knowledge gaps need to be filled in order to determine the pros and cons of muirburn in relation to the suite of upland ecosystem services that moorlands provide. Ultimately, the findings recommend that targeted scientific assessment is required to better understand the role of muirburn in relation to wildfire and biodiversity. Detailed scientific research cannot simply be generated and reported on every two years.

I believe that it is more appropriate and proportionate to monitor wildfires through the existing reporting systems, in conjunction with the wildfire strategy. That, in turn, will enable NatureScot to take into account the most up-to-date evidence on wildfire when updating the muirburn code and assessing licence applications. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 175, and I ask members to vote against it.

Amendments 76 and 77 will change the definition of muirburn in the bill. During the stage 1 evidence sessions, we heard from stakeholders who were concerned that the definition of muirburn might be broad enough to cover situations that would not normally be considered to be muirburn. The current wording in the bill refers to the

“burning of heather or other vegetation”,

which might capture piled-up dead vegetation and so include things such as bonfires and campfires. We also heard concern that the definition would include the activity of flame weeding, which is a method that is used to control weeds in garden settings or agricultural fields, or gorse in fields, golf courses and urban areas.

It was not the intention to include activities of that type under the bill. The muirburn provisions are intended to cover only the burning of vegetation on a heath or a muir. The amendments would align the definition of making muirburn in the bill to what is currently used in the Hill Farming Act 1946, which is well understood by practitioners, so that it means

“the setting of fire to, or the burning of, any heath or muir.”

That would provide welcome clarity, so I encourage the committee to vote for amendments 76 and 77.

I do not propose to speak on any other amendments in the group at this point, but I will listen to the proposers and to what all contributors have to say before responding.

I move amendment 76.