Seòmar agus comataidhean

My amendment 154 would impose a new condition where a licence is granted in relation to peatland, requiring the person who is undertaking muirburn to do so in a way that minimises the damage to the peatland. As we know, healthy peatland is a vital resource in our efforts to reduce our climate emissions, as it locks up carbon.

The evidence base on muirburn and wildfires is contested, as we have already heard this evening. I remain concerned that escaped fires from muirburn could contribute to wildfires in Scotland’s uplands, creating risk to wildlife and habitats and risk of serious carbon emissions from damaged peat.

My amendment is a probing one. It seeks to require people with a licence to make muirburn on peatland to do so in a way that limits damage to the peatland. For example, studies in protected areas of Ontario in Canada have shown that burning peatland in linear strips can be effective at creating natural firebreaks in the landscape. Such an approach limits the damage to thin strips, whereas burning large patches of peatland is more common in Scotland.

My amendment does not prescribe that particular approach, as other similar methods are, no doubt, available. Rather, the intention is that the muirburn code would focus on muirburn methods that can be shown to minimise the damage to our important peatlands.

It is great to hear that there is a small producers pilot fund, which I understand to be worth about £1 million. However, there are 40,000 small producers—people who operate at the scale of a croft, on under 3 hectares, and sell at market gardens—who really need support. How do you define small producers? What size of land being farmed are you talking about? We need to be really clear about that. I have talked to people who call themselves small producers but have 70 acres.

We have already touched on this a little bit. New EU regulations require member states to allocate at least 10 per cent of direct payments to complementing redistributive income support for sustainability. I would like to understand why you have not chosen to include a similar requirement in the bill at this point.

Great—it is staying connected to the CAP. We might already have touched on that.

Do you intend to bring forward entirely new regulations to govern the new schemes, or new versions of schemes, under the proposed tier system? Will the existing CAP regulations eventually be repealed when legacy schemes are fully obsolete? Is any specific end date envisaged for the CAP legacy schemes? Will you set out the expected use of the powers in the rural support plan—our favourite topic?

I am delighted to put on record my support for amendment 71, which will extend the SSPCA’s powers to investigate wildlife crime. Scottish Greens have called for that for a long time, which is why we included in the Bute house agreement reference to the holding of a timely review of the SSPCA’s powers.

On several occasions during stage 1, we heard evidence of situations in which animal welfare officers are limited in what they can do to collect evidence of wildlife crime. The extension of the SSPCA’s powers will improve our ability to bring more perpetrators of wildlife crime to justice and to protect the reputations of those businesses that abide by the law.

I have a long list of birds here.

The report that I have from NatureScot is about the whole of Scotland, which is what we are looking at here. The BTO study “Nesting dates of Moorland Birds in the English, Welsh and Scottish Uplands”, which has been referenced, found that, in 10 per cent of golden plover nests, 15 per cent of lapwing nests and 31 per cent of peregrine nests, eggs had already been laid by 31 March, and by 15 April those figures had increased to 45 per cent, 52 per cent and 82 per cent respectively. Additionally, the study found that 11 per cent of hen harriers, 27 per cent of snipe and 41 per cent of stonechats had laid by the latter date.

My concern is that we are seeing climate change and the nature emergency lead to breeding seasons coming earlier. With this amendment, I am seeking to future proof the provisions.

Yes.

My amendment 167 seeks to set the close of the muirburn season as 15 March. As we have heard, various dates have been suggested this evening, which demonstrates the degree of change that we are seeing in the seasons and the effects on wildlife. My amendment would set an earlier end to muirburn season as proposed in the bill to avoid the season overlapping with the breeding seasons of several bird species that routinely nest on moorland.

The definition of peat was discussed during stage 1, and that is reflected in a variety of amendments, but why is there a focus on peat depth at all? The International Union for Conservation of Nature’s peatland programme is clear that all peat—from the shallowest peaty soils to deep layers—is vital and an integral part of the overall health of peatlands. In fact, the shallowest of peat soils, those less than 30cm in depth, are arguably the most in need of protection, being more susceptible to damage and drying out.

Early in my discussions about the bill with stakeholders, I was surprised to learn that the current definition, which is based on depth, stems from post-war land management strategies when Britain was looking to maximise its natural resources and agricultural productivity. It is based not on ecological understanding or rooted in climate adaptation practices, but rather in an arbitrary assessment that is based on what was required over half a century ago.

Amendment 169 seeks to remove that arbitrary definition entirely, removing the link between the depth of peat and its status under the licensing regime that is set out in the bill. All peat soils would therefore be subject to the muirburn licensing regime. In a time of climate emergency, we should be looking to maximise the protection of peat and not be undercutting the work that other parts of the Scottish Government are doing to fund the restoration of peatlands.

I am well aware that there will not be consensus on my amendment. I await the minister’s response, but I believe that it is important to highlight how peatland is defined.