Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 62 would ensure that any licence conditions are reasonable. In other words, it necessitates the imposition of reasonable licence conditions only.

On amendment 63, a 10-year licence would ensure the greatest clarity for land managers and would be most consistent with the type of investment and land management associated with Scotland’s grouse moors. Ten years provides optimum certainty for investment, livelihoods, the wider supply chain and the economy—obviously, the rural economy is very important just now. Ten-year licences would ensure that sustainable grouse moor management could continue under licence, with greater opportunities to bolster efforts to deliver on climate and biodiversity targets due to the longer timeframe allowing for enhanced forward planning.

On amendment 132, we know that moorland that is managed for grouse shooting is often also managed for other purposes—examples include hill farming, deer, peatland restoration and renewables. In the light of the increasingly mixed-use nature of grouse moors, it follows that any licensing decision is made with reference to the taking or killing of red grouse in isolation. It would not be right that a grouse moor operator suffers a sanction on the back of the actions of a person who rents the land, for example. This simple amendment provides for that. Its effect would be to make it clear that it is only the conduct of persons who manage the land for the purpose of the licence—that is, grouse moor management—that can trigger licensing penalties. How can it be right that the conduct of persons who manage the land for a purpose that is unrelated to the licence—for example, an agricultural tenant—can result in the licence being suspended, despite the land management in question having no tie to the licensed activity or, to put it another way, the management of the grouse moor? That is irrational given that the purpose of the licensing scheme is to tackle raptor persecution connected with grouse moor management.

On the question of the practitioners who will be required to complete the training courses, will it be exclusively those who put a match to vegetation and those who extinguish it?

I was minded to vote against your amendment, but you have persuaded me that it is a sensible one. I initially interpreted it as narrowing the scope of the area where peatland could be burned, but that is not the case. You are saying that it would widen that scope.

I will not move amendment 65, on the basis that the minister is working with me.

Amendment 65 not moved.

Amendment 66 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

Amendment 174 would simply amend the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 to ensure that personnel are trained in relation to muirburn. It adds a statutory requirement for firefighters to be provided with training that specifically includes sessions on issues arising from making muirburn. It is crucial that our fire services are aware of, understand and are provided with the requisite training in relation to making muirburn, not only for the safety of the public, but for their own safety.

Amendment 175 would require ministers to publish a report every two years on the role of muirburn in relation to wildfires in Scotland. The report would have to consider the impact and damage caused by wildfire on wildlife habitats, the conservation of the natural environment, property and other matters. It is interesting to note that, in relation to the Cannich wildfire and other wildfires, it was difficult for the people who manage the land to understand the significant impact on and damage to those specific parts of nature.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has made it clear that muirburn is not the primary driver or cause of wildfire events in Scotland; on the contrary, the fuel load management that is achieved in making muirburn is often credited with limiting or reducing the effect of wildfire incidents where they occur. Compelling ministers to produce a wildfire report every two years to consider the impacts of muirburn activity on wildfire intensity would be a practical and advisable thing to do as wildfire events become more frequent and prominent with the advent of climate change.

I move amendment 174.

It is useful to have that clarity and that update on the work that you are doing with stakeholders in that co-development. Thank you for that.

However, I disagree with Emma Harper. We have heard that, although people want flexibility, they absolutely want clarity, too, and they understand the potential difficulties with the framework bill. I think that the key point is that the people from whom we have heard evidence are asking for the funding to be allocated and for a breakdown of it to be known before the bill is passed. That has been a strong theme throughout the evidence sessions.

As well as what you have just shared with us, I am keen to know what role the agriculture reform implementation oversight board has in shaping the piece that John Kerr talked about in relation to the vision and the route map—which is really just a wish list—and how that will shape clarity about the funding underpinning them.

On the back of that comment, would you make a plea to the Cabinet for further funding for the top-up, beyond what you already allocate?

One of the main concerns that I have, and which I hear from other stakeholders, is that the term “sustainable and regenerative” could be interpreted in different ways by different groups of people, whether they be food producers or environmental lobbyists, for example. It is difficult, because “sustainable” could also incorporate a fair work agenda or other areas that are not related to the environment or animal welfare, for example.

It would be useful to understand that. From the policy point of view, I do not know at what point in the whole process of this transformation you will allow the committee to understand what you mean by “sustainable and regenerative”. That understanding would take away the fears about non-compliance that Rhoda Grant and the convener were talking about.

The code of practice is all about ensuring that specific species are protected and not disturbed. What is the benefit of adding medicated grit to it?

I will go back to my original question. Notwithstanding the arguments that you make about the flexibility of a framework bill, what is holding civil servants back from issuing a draft publication of the allocation of funding within a rural support plan? Is it resource or capacity?