Seòmar agus comataidhean

As my colleagues have done, I could ask that the minister might be willing to meet me before stage 3 to discuss the issue further, and I sincerely hope that he will do so, but perhaps he will also put on the record some assurance that any changes will be widely consulted on with all stakeholders, who will have an input to any changes that might take place.

I am a little concerned that only the affirmative procedure will be used, given that there will be people who will need to be consulted. What reassurance can the minister give me that an order will be widely consulted on before it is put in front of the Parliament?

There is quite a lot of concern that people could break the law on the land pertaining to the licence without the knowledge or agreement of the licence holder. It is about finding the right balance. Can the minister give assurances that NatureScot would have to be reasonably convinced that an offence had been carried out under the direction of the licence holder? They could obviously ignore things and turn a blind eye, which I believe would leave them guilty as well. However, can you give an assurance that, when offences are carried out explicitly against the will of the landowner, they will not have their licence revoked?

My amendments in this group refer to the muirburn code, which is fundamental to the practices of licence holders. The Scottish Government has not given Parliament any indication of what the code will look like, so the amendments aim to ensure that, before it is enforced, the code is consulted on, scrutinised and evaluated by Parliament. I believe that that covers the amendments that have been lodged by Edward Mountain.

Amendment 172 is similar to previous amendments that I have lodged to try to bring a degree of scrutiny of subordinate legislation to the bill.

It is clear that knowledge of how muirburn affects peat and what different depths of peat mean for different management techniques will depend on the science, which is not clear at the moment. As is demonstrated by the array of amendments in front of us today, the minister cannot pretend that there will be consensus on that, even if the science becomes clearer. Therefore, the impact of any change in the depth of peat that is used in the definition must be properly scrutinised.

I fear that the minister is more interested in avoiding scrutiny than in saving parliamentary time. It is Parliament’s role to scrutinise the Government, on behalf of our constituents, so I hope that the minister will at least accept amendment 172.

We genuinely hope that that is the Government’s intention, but, unless the bill guarantees us that scrutiny will take place, the committee might not be able to see a draft of the plan. I suppose that I am asking for a commitment that the Government will lay a draft, that the committee will have time to scrutinise it and that Government will listen to the feedback that we gain from speaking to stakeholders about it.

I want to press home this point, because all the communication that we are getting from the industry is that it does not know what is going to happen. The longer that people wait, the more fearful they become.

I am unsure whether you have understood the intent of my amendment, which is to allow muirburn as opposed to other methods of heather control.

You seem to be indicating that my amendment encourages cutting heather and other fuel load rather than burning it, but it does not—it is the very opposite, actually.

I totally get what the cabinet secretary is saying about the difference between the bill and the plan. The bill has to be wide, but it is the rural support plan that could make or break businesses and which will show the direction of travel for agriculture. That is why people want to see a draft of what the Government’s thinking is. It does not need to be nailed down at this point, but it is why we are getting so many representations on it.

The bill does not really provide for much scrutiny of the plan. Where is the consultation? Where is the monitoring and evaluation? Where is the parliamentary scrutiny? If people knew that the plan was going to be scrutinised—not in the same way as the bill, but still scrutinised closely—it would give them a degree of comfort that they would be able to feed in their views. If the first iteration was not right, people could go back to the drawing board. The real fear is that, in 2025, it will be a case of take it or leave it.