Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I understand it, there is a distinction between wildlife trap licences and section 16AA licences in that one has an appeal process and the other does not. Can you explain the reasons behind that distinction?

As other members have said, licences can be granted for different purposes, according to whether the location is peatland or non-peatland. I noticed that one of the reasons that can be offered for burning on non-peatland is to manage the environment, but am I right in saying that that is not one of the reasons for applying to burn on peatland where you can offer to enhance the environment but not to manage it? I might be reading that wrong. Could you explain the point about the reasons that people can offer?

Could you also say a bit about what outcome you are trying to prevent by people burning on peatland? There have been examples in England of wildfires where it has been alleged that the peat has been burned on a hillside, although it might be difficult to point to examples of that in Scotland—I am not sure. The other half of my question is therefore about what you are trying to prevent by people burning on peatland.

There are a variety of views among stakeholders around the figure of 40cm depth of peat and why that figure has been chosen. Could you tell us why it has been chosen, please?

Can you say a bit more about how island communities play a role in assessing the impact of what the islands plan is achieving? By that, I am referring not just to the important quantitative data that you have just talked about, but to qualitative opinion. How do you measure that?

You are liaising with local authorities, but are you also liaising with individual island communities? You know what I am going to say. For people in certain islands—I will not name the islands—the local authority is not only distant but does not have much sympathy with them. How do you ensure that you are liaising with specific islands and not just with local authorities that are distant beasts?

I do not say any of that to take away from the importance of the local authorities, but you know what I am referring to. Thank you.

I was just going to say that, if it had not been inappropriate for Karen Adam to ask it, I would have asked the same question. That was the point that I was making.

I think that we are running out of time, to be honest.

Well, I tell a lie—I will ask a question, if we have time. It is about not just the annual report but, more generally, the ability—as the cabinet secretary has touched on—to influence other Government directorates when it comes to islands policy.

Cabinet secretary, you have indicated that your directorate cannot change everything in islands yourselves, and you have mentioned that the island communities impact assessments might be able to change the culture in Government. What progress has been made on changing the culture more broadly across Government?

Clearly, the ICIAs have made a big impact—no pun intended—and they have raised expectations in a way about the decisions that would be subject to that assessment. A question that I am sometimes asked is about which organisations, agencies or bodies are required to consider going down that route. Will you say a bit about which are and which are not? We are sometimes asked that question locally.

That is very helpful. What I am driving at is whether you are satisfied that the list is complete enough, given the variety of agencies that are involved in delivering policy in an island setting, or whether it is something that you keep under review.