Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

There have been assurances, and I presume that they are something that the Government—or any Government—will not be able to renege on. There have obviously been discussions.