Seòmar agus comataidhean

In your written evidence, and in some of your comments today, you have outlined where there have been non-tariff barriers or other challenges. QMS has said that the change in the rules for exporting processed meats to the EU market has meant that Scottish suppliers are no longer able to export fresh mince and meat preparations, such as sausages, to the EU.

To what extent have those impacts changed what the agriculture sector in Scotland is focused on? Have you seen a significant shift in the mix of agricultural produce that farmers and so on are focused on, and have you seen any impact on the domestic market? In other words, is the agriculture sector trying to create more of a market in Scotland in order to avoid having to export?

I do not know whether this question is directly relevant, but it is in the general scheme of things. Are there any winners in Scottish agriculture when it comes to the free trade agreements such as those with Australia and New Zealand?

Some of this has been covered already, but I will pick up on comments that were made by stakeholders about the purposes in schedule 1. I am sure that the cabinet secretary is quite sympathetic to the idea of future proofing any legislation. A number of specific comments, which I will not go into in detail, were made about areas where there was an element of prescriptiveness that may or may not miss out things that might become relevant later.

For example, questions were asked about why certain sectors have been omitted and about why certain things have been included. People asked why eggs, poultry and pork have been omitted. One comment was about the need for sufficient flexibility to account for future circumstances, such as changes in climate or cropping patterns having an effect. Are you sympathetic to that? How do you balance being prescriptive—there will be pressure on you to be prescriptive—with being broad enough to allow for change?

Amendments 88 and 89 are, in my view, fairly minor, technical amendments and they are certainly not controversial. They ensure that there is consistency across licensable purposes for peatland and non-peatland. Amendment 88 ensures that muirburn, which of course does not distinguish between habitats, can be licensed on peatland and non-peatland where we want to prevent damage to habitats caused by wildfire.

Amendment 89 does the same thing, correcting inconsistencies across licensable purposes for peatland and non-peatland, but amendment 89 concerns a licensable purpose where an individual wants to conserve, restore, enhance or manage the natural environment. In short, my two amendments allow for the management of habitats and the protection of the natural environment across peatland and non-peatland as a licensable requirement when it comes to muirburn.

I have spoken to the minister about the amendments, and I understand and respect the point that the Government may wish to bring them back at stage 3. I hope that the minister can give some assurance on that, so as to give effect to the intention behind my two amendments at stage 3, which will mean that I will not move my amendments.

I will not move amendment 89.

Amendment 89 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

In the interests of time, I will go straight to pressing the amendment.

Amendment 91 agreed to.

Amendment 147 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

Does the minister recognise, too, that, as the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service indicated, one of the most essential aims of carrying out muirburn is that it acts as a firebreak for wildfire? Not only is it in the interests of a particular industry, albeit one on which people might have different views; without it, we might have seen homes being burned to the ground last summer.

I am happy not to move amendment 95 when the time comes, in the light of what the minister has outlined.

Stakeholders have shared some concerns about the capacity for other birds to be added without scrutiny. I have had some good conversations with the minister that have recognised those concerns and the need to have balanced legislation that is not overly prescriptive or too broad but can take changing circumstances into account. Although I cannot support Rhoda Grant’s amendment, I wanted to put those stakeholders’ concerns on the record. I know that the minister understands the breadth of that worry.

Rachael Hamilton has already addressed my amendments 101 and 102. The purpose of the amendments needs to be seen in terms of what both achieve, because they are essential to each other. I recognise the push from some quarters, particularly the RSPB, NatureScot and others, to close the muirburn season on 31 March instead of 15 April for reasons relating to the number of moorland birds that might be disturbed, but it is my strong view that that cannot result in an overall reduction in the muirburn season. That is why I have also lodged my amendments to ensure that the start of the muirburn season is 15 September instead of 1 October, which I understand will make a meaningful difference, as per discussions with stakeholders.

There is not much to add beyond that. I encourage members to see those two amendments working in partnership, and I hope that members can support them.