Seòmar agus comataidhean

A lot of us have been out to see muirburn. If the minister has seen muirburn, did he witness that peat was burned after the muirburn or whether sphagnum moss remained wet where it was a depth of 50cm, which is the current level used in the survey data?

National survey data of peat at the 50cm depth threshold is currently available. It therefore follows that that definition should be retained to provide land managers with a degree of certainty about what constitutes peatland or non-peatland areas. Before passing regulations about heather and grass burning in England, the then secretary of state George Eustice ensured that peat survey data was available at the requisite threshold.

The provision of de minimis will help to safeguard against issues arising from variable peat depth in small areas by mandating that, to constitute peatland, peat must be of a 50cm depth in a single area of half a hectare or more.

I believe that amendment 169, in the name of Ariane Burgess, is completely unworkable and would unreasonably curtail muirburn activity by stealth. It would also have a Scotland-wide impact, which would rapidly increase fuel load and create a significant risk of wildfire.

On Colin Smyth’s amendment 171, I do not believe that peat depth or a below-ground metric should be used to regulate muirburn, which is an above-ground activity.

I favour the retention of a 50cm peat depth as the defining characteristic of peatland, because national survey data exists at that depth, providing greater certainty to end users. There is no scientific basis for moving to a 30cm depth.

I understand the intention, which is based on the Werritty review’s recommendations. However, how does medicated grit relate to a code of practice that is related to the disturbance of wild animals, wild birds and wild plants?

How does that help with the disturbance of wild animals, wild birds and wild plants?

On that point, I believe that the group has an important scrutiny role. We are not seeing that work, because the Government is choosing whether to publish it. That does not allow us to do our job.

We currently have £621 million from the UK Government. What is that in tiers 1 and 2? You said that you wanted clarity on future funding. You have allocated 70 per cent in tier 1 and 2. What are you basing those figures on?

If you had the same funding, would you want to ring fence that funding and commit to multi-annual funding agreements?

Yes. Thank you.

The muirburn licence will relate to the land, meaning that it is important to specify what the land is being used for in the context of any potential licensing decision. My amendment 160 would provide—I can never say this word—specificity in that regard by stating unequivocally that the licence relates to the land for the purpose of making muirburn. [Interruption.] You cannot say it either, convener. [Laughter.]

If we do not support Rhoda Grant’s amendment, the individual will be under suspicion, will have to go through an investigation and will have their licence suspended for an indefinite period of time. Therefore, they will be under suspicion from the get-go.