Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will speak to amendments 91, 92, 96, 98, 99 and 104. I will first put on record my admiration for individuals such as those in Bright Spark Burning Techniques, who, with the support of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, have taught and trained countless muirburn practitioners. I also pay tribute to those practitioners, who are well trained, experienced and conscientious in the carrying out of muirburn. Over the summer, when I visited a site near Cannich and met gamekeepers, I was struck by the fact that they had actively saved businesses and buildings as a result of their many years of experience in fighting fire with fire and because of their training in muirburn.

My amendments in this group introduce a requirement for anybody who applies for a muirburn licence to have completed an approved training course. Muirburn was discussed extensively in the stage 1 evidence sessions, and two points emerged in particular when it came to conducting muirburn safely. The first was the widespread agreement that training is a must. That has been confirmed by input from various stakeholders indicating that, given the associated risks and the potential for extensive damage if muirburn is not executed properly, it is important that those who engage in muirburn activities have appropriate training. That requirement for training was supported by Deputy Assistant Chief Officer Bruce Farquharson of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

The second point goes right back to where I started: that many muirburn practitioners have already undergone some form of training. They recognise the importance of training, and they are very conscientious practitioners. Training is already happening on a less formalised basis, and voluntary training has been developed by Bright Spark Burning Techniques, NatureScot and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. For that reason, I hope that my amendments make sense and strengthen the bill. I hope that the requirement will not add a significant additional burden on practitioners who are already doing the training, and who have experience and expertise in carrying out muirburn.

I move amendment 91.

For absolute clarity—again, I know that the minister fully understands some of the apprehension—what I am hearing from the minister is that there would be an obligation to consult, because there would be a parliamentary procedure. It would not be a case of ministers just making a decision in a dark room without engaging with stakeholders. That is the key in offering assurance.

Not moved.

Does the member accept that, as we have seen over the summer, the most destructive thing for peatland is wildfires that are out of control and that, where muirburn can be restricted and managed, it often ensures that peatland is saved on a much broader basis than if fires were to get out of control because of increased fuel load?

We would be right.

I take in very good faith what the minister says. So, if he can assure me that there will be an amendment of some kind at stage 3 that gives effect to my amendments 88 and 89, I will not move them.

That is heartening, because it means that there is the potential for change, so your participation really matters. I do not know whether anyone else wants to respond and say whether they have equal levels of optimism and hope that their participation might result in change.

This may be a bit of a political question. SAFE has identified a number of areas where it would like progress, such as programmes to join or new provisions and regulations to make. There has been more success in some cases—such as the horizon programme—than in others, where there are outstanding programmes that you want participation in. Where movement has occurred, has that been because of effective consultation with civic society, or has that been pure politics?

Good morning. A number of Scottish Government staff have been before the committee, and we have discussed some of the distinct advantages of promoting Scotland with regard to the Scottish brand, produce and talent. That work started under Governments that were in office prior to the SNP and has continued under the SNP. What do you see as being the advantage to the Scottish economy of having a specifically Scottish mission that is ever so slightly distinct from, although such missions are often housed in, UK embassies?

We have talked about the value to the economy in trade terms. However, Scotland faces challenging demographic forecasts and it is somewhat frustrating that we do not control visa arrangements. Nevertheless, we have been promoting Scotland as much as possible and inviting people to come to live and work here.

In your work, did you consider what it takes to help people to make that decision—to move from seeing Scotland in a positive way reputationally to seeing Scotland as somewhere that they might want to put down roots?