Seòmar agus comataidhean

On that point, to be fair, that is true of every piece of legislation that has subsidiary legislation or regulations or dependent licensing based on it. We have been through many bills in this Parliament and we have had this discussion. There is an issue of carts and horses here. Yes, we can scrutinise licences, but we cannot scrutinise them until we have legislation to empower organisations to have licences.

I will ask about resources. We have heard a bit about the task that NatureScot would face in licensing muirburn. What are the resource implications for NatureScot? Is the organisation confident about being able to meet the requirement?

I am content with that approach, and I do not sense any movement to annul the instrument. I just want a clearer idea of what the letter to the Government will say and, roughly, its tone and content.

It appears to have been given comfort on that point, which presumably is not the same as its having seen the bill.

I hope that my question, which is about the period of section 16AA licences, will be reasonably quick. The bill sets out that licences must be for a period that does not exceed one year. Is that the right period?

Do you really mean indefinite licences?

I appreciate that there is not much that you can comment on, but, looking at the proposal as a police officer, what is your opinion on its workability?

Yes, in the bill.

Do you feel that you need that power to have an effective range of sanctions?

On the point about the pattern of muirburn and how it differs across different sectors, one of the things that is different about crofting is that it sometimes takes place on common grazings, so it involves multiple crofters, which makes it a different kind of activity. Dr Geelhoed, do you want to comment on that?