Seòmar agus comataidhean

Obviously you do not want to compromise the evidence that might be available for a prosecution. Do you therefore accept that those might be the very circumstances in which it would be useful to extend the powers, with limitations? The Government will probably not forgive me for saying this, but the fact is that there are not enough wildlife crime police officers, and the SSPCA will be able to do the early bit and secure the scene until you can take over—in certain circumstances.

Forgive me—I do not have the bill in front of me, but does it use the word “available” rather than “appropriate”?

I do not think that that is the right word.

That is sufficient, is it not, Alasdair? I am just asking because I have to go.

So, it would be a dual process: Police Scotland would go straight to prosecution, and in the meantime NatureScot would have suspended the licence, I take it.

Possibly. Thank you—I think that I understand it now.

We have not touched on appellant procedure. That would deal with the ECHR. Depending on circumstances, how quickly might an appeal be made against revocation or suspension of a licence or a variation of the terms of a licence? It is very important that, when a judgment has been made, a person has a right to appeal on cause shown.

We can find out. It is always available to us to find something more specific for stage 2.

The licensing provisions in the bill say that a licence will be granted when Scottish ministers

“are satisfied that ... muirburn is necessary ... and ... no other method of vegetation control is available.”

I would have preferred the word “appropriate” to “available”.

“Appropriate” is a better word.