Seòmar agus comataidhean

I intend to press amendment 174. I have not been convinced by the minister’s arguments that the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 should not be amended to recognise training for muirburn. It is a really important aspect, considering the danger that firefighters and the wider public in rural areas can be put in, particularly considering examples such as Cannich. Although it has been noted that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service carries out training and is quick to tackle wildfires, there were distinct gaps in provision when the Cannich wildfire was being tackled last year.

Turning to the points that Edward Mountain made, it is really important that the Fire and Rescue Service is able to use the equipment that gamekeepers and others use to mitigate the wildfire risk. It may be that the fire service does not have that in its suite of training. I therefore still think that the amendment is important, and I am not convinced by the argument that has been made against it.

The additional scrutiny that I am asking for by way of a biennial report is important. We know that biodiversity loss has not been reported, and the minister has acknowledged that there have been knowledge gaps that need to be filled. I hope to lodge an equivalent amendment to amendment 175 at stage 3, in order to get more detail on the scientific research that NatureScot does, and the timeframe in which it is able to provide it. That is a really important piece of work, which must be completed and reported to the Parliament. I will not be moving amendment 175, because I understand that the two-year reporting period could prove challenging, but I will come back at stage 3 with a different amendment that could perhaps reflect the scientific research that the minister referenced.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the amendments in this very important group.

It is worth stating at the outset that uncertainty over amendments in this group has prompted a significant amount of concern and anguish among stakeholders and muirburn practitioners. Therefore, I am keen to ensure that the various concerns that have been raised with me are properly articulated and considered, so I ask members to bear with me while I make some quite technical and scientific observations in relation to the amendments that have been lodged.

I want to start by addressing amendments 101 and 102, in the name of Kate Forbes, which would have the effect of starting and ending the muirburn season two weeks earlier than the status quo. I understand that those amendments have been driven by the perceived impact of muirburn on ground-nesting birds.

I have no issue with opening the muirburn season on 15 September rather than 1 October. It seems logical to provide practitioners with additional capacity to make muirburn in September, notwithstanding the fact that the quality of the burning will not be as good as it is towards the end of the season. If we are to meaningfully reduce fuel load and enhance habitats for biodiversity, having the capacity to burn for an additional two weeks in September could be advantageous. Therefore, I have no difficulty in supporting amendment 101.

However, I have a slight issue with the scientific evidence that supports the amendment that would have the effect of closing the season on 31 March instead of 15 April. I have taken the time to consider in detail the available scientific evidence on the impact of muirburn on ground-nesting birds, and I have to say that I am completely unconvinced by the arguments in favour of amendment 102.

In 2021, the British Trust for Ornithology published an incredibly detailed research report that considered in detail the nesting dates of moorland birds with reference to muirburn. It noted that the

“Overlap for most species between burning season and laying dates remains small”

and that the overall impact of muirburn can be characterised as “low”, even among early breeders. Indeed, it went on to note that those birds that breed early favour habitat that would never be targeted for burning. Golden eagles and peregrine falcons prefer crags, which cannot be burned, and lapwing and golden plover prefer short vegetation, which you would be extremely hard pressed to burn.

The only species that Kate Forbes can credibly say would be impacted by muirburn is the stonechat. That is a small bird that can be described as a habitat generalist, in light of the fact that it nests successfully in lowland, as well as upland, areas. For that reason, the authors of the research that I have referred to noted that

“no more than 0.3-0.5% of nests are likely destroyed by burning”,

which is not statistically significant in the grand scheme of things. Therefore, I think that we can say that the current muirburn season is not posing a threat to ground-nesting birds. Indeed, on the contrary, we know that many species benefit significantly from habitats created by muirburn, as has already been articulated by members this evening.

The other concern that has been put to me is that moorland birds are nesting earlier, which I undertook to explore. Helpfully, that same BTO research report 741 provides useful commentary on that issue, too. It suggests that, on the whole, breeding dates are

“typically advancing by 1-2 days per decade”.

Given the in-depth analysis courtesy of that report, I am not sure that we can credibly say that, just three years later, moorland birds are now breeding significantly earlier. I accept that the muirburn season might be something that we need to look at in the future, but I do not believe that we have reached the point where action is required now.

We must also consider the disbenefits of curtailing the season on 31 March. Providers of muirburn training have said that curtailing the season will have enduring impacts on the provision of muirburn training. That is an interesting point and something that only those who practise muirburn could probably comment on. Muirburn training is set to become a statutory requirement under the bill, so it is an important point.

We know that muirburn training requires an assessment of practical skills, which involves an assessed muirburn. Muirburn trainers have said that some 90 per cent of those assessments take place between 15 March and 15 April, because that is the time when the conditions are most favourable for burning. They have also told me that it is often not feasible to burn at any other time of year due to the ground, the vegetation and the atmospheric conditions.

Therefore, the question is whether amendment 102 would have the effect of imposing a bottleneck on the provision of muirburn training. I am not sure whether that is something that the minister has considered. About 100 people have been trained and assessed voluntarily, but hundreds more will shortly require the qualification in order to burn. Closing the season on 31 March would put the entire training aspiration from the Scottish Government at risk.

To that end, I ask all members to vote against amendment 102 on the basis that it lacks evidential grounding. It is likely to be accompanied by unintended consequences that could potentially be damaging. It is also worth noting that, during the stage 1 debate, the minister intervened on Ariane Burgess when she suggested that the muirburn season should be curtailed early, citing the very research from the BTO that I have spoken about at length. I hope that the minister will be sympathetic to my arguments, considering his comments in the chamber.

It goes without saying that the arguments that I have outlined in relation to amendment 102 also apply to Ariane Burgess’s amendment 167, which would see the muirburn season ending even earlier than 15 March. I find that impractical, and it is quite astonishing that Ariane Burgess would seek to curtail the activity without a shred of supporting scientific evidence—although we may hear that shortly—especially given the extent to which her region has been hit by catastrophic wildfires in recent years.

Muirburn has an integral role in reducing wildfire risk and neutralising wildfire when it does occur, as we have already heard this evening. I believe that amendment 167 would significantly detract from that, which would not be in the interests of the people who were affected by the wildfires in that region.

Thank you for bearing with me, convener. I will now speak to amendments 183 and 184, which are in my name, as well as to amendments 25, 26, 39 and 40, which are in the name of my colleague Edward Mountain. The amendments are designed to give practitioners a mechanism to burn beyond 31 March if the minister is determined to continue on the damaging course of closing the season early.

My amendments would provide the ability to burn in the extended muirburn season, which is the period between 1 and 30 April, for limited purposes only, to include provision for training. That would effectively deal with the issues surrounding training that I referred to earlier. Edward Mountain’s amendments would also provide the ability to burn beyond the close season under licence for a narrow range of purposes.

There are very good reasons why practitioners should be able to continue burning into April. I have highlighted the immediate unintended consequences of not being able to burn in April, but I should also say that there would be a reduction in the amount of muirburn made annually if the decision were followed through. I contend that it is not in the public interest to reduce muirburn in that way, given the demonstrable benefits that it provides for biodiversity, livestock, game birds, wildfire mitigation and habitat conservation. There is emerging evidence from a long-term study in northern England that muirburn is having huge benefits for a range of key peatland characteristics including water retention, methane reduction and nutrient provision. It is for those reasons that I very much hope that, if the minister decides to support amendment 102 in the name of Kate Forbes, he will support Edward Mountain’s and my efforts to provide practitioners with the means to burn in April.

I support amendment 168 in the name of my colleague Rhoda Grant, which would provide sufficient and effective scrutiny of any future changes to the muirburn season that might be made by regulation.

I move amendment 183.

John Kerr mentioned in a previous session—the session at which we initially took evidence—that the SRUC was doing some economic modelling that would be published. I am sure that, at the time, he said that that would be published around December. Is there any movement on that?

In monitoring the effectiveness of section 16AA licences, it is important that any summary in relation to relevant offences is not speculative, so that a conclusion is not formed on the basis of incomplete information. In that regard, the reference to “suspected offences” is not an appropriate metric. Offences are either proven by way of conviction or not proven, and amendment 85B would ensure that only proven offences were reflected in any summary or report.

Amendment 85C is a minor amendment to provide consistency in respect of the language and phrasing used elsewhere in the bill.

I move amendment 85B.

I will press amendment 85B.

What if the Scottish Government uses its powers in such a way that it gets this wrong? We know that farmers are already doing stuff. What if what they are doing does not fit in with the Government’s rules, with the result that they become non-compliant? I completely get where Rhoda Grant is coming from. The way in which the bill is being interpreted is that the code will be prescriptive and farmers will have to follow it, because, if they do not, they will become non-compliant. How will they know whether what they are doing is right, given that it is the Government that sets the rules? Farmers need to be confident and to have clarity.

As the minister well knows, there was much discussion in committee sessions regarding when the protocols will be established. Is there any indication of when that will be? It is important for us to understand what the protocols are, because of the long-standing concerns around giving the SSPCA powers and the view of some people that investigation powers should lie with Police Scotland.

I am sorry, minister, but I completely disagree with your opinion. Section 7 gives the Scottish ministers wide-ranging and powerful enabling powers to do what they like in adding to the list of specific species in such circumstances. That is why I do not support it.

Thank you, minister. My point is specifically about the Government’s training aspiration. As I said, more people will be coming forward—

I am just wondering whether the five-year review timeframe is too long in terms of consultation. Obviously, we hope that, in the future, farmers will be paid annually by the Government. If farmers cannot access funding because of non-compliance, because they are not meeting your definition of sustainable and regenerative agriculture, it will take them a very long while to put in place what is necessary to meet that definition. We are talking about many different farming contexts here; we are not talking about one size fits all. I think that the Scottish Government could consider whether a five-year process is just too long.