Chamber and committees

Not on this issue, convener.

Are you able to say how much science and research you buy in from other countries?

An issue that is quite critical to any island is freight logistics and hauliers getting goods on to and out of the islands. Is there any reference to that in the draft islands plan?

Thank you.

A few weeks ago, I had a meeting with Food Standards Scotland about children’s diets and how the diets of teenagers—sorry, they are young people; we cannot call them teenagers now—could be improved by reducing the amount of red meat and dairy products in them. FSS’s briefing says:

“Greenhouse gas emissions associated with diets of children … could be reduced by up to ~28% … by reducing”

meat and dairy, which is in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.

I am not for one minute saying that we should not do anything about children’s diets. My point picks up on what Donna Smith said earlier about muddled messaging. Does anyone have anything that they want to say on that observation?

I should make it clear that I was being pointed to research that had been conducted by others.

If the witnesses could respond to Alasdair Allan’s pertinent question, too, that would be helpful.

My question is phrased in this way: what would happen if the Scottish Government did not introduce policies to reduce livestock numbers? What are the alternatives for closing the gap, and are they to be found within or outwith the agriculture sector?

There has been a lot of talk about reducing livestock numbers in order to reduce emissions. However, the Scottish Government has been clear that it will not introduce a policy to reduce livestock numbers; instead, there will be policies on efficiencies and welfare in livestock production. What are your views on the measures in the draft CCP? Are they sufficient to reduce livestock emissions?

My question is about the nuance surrounding peatland restoration projects. In Shetland, roughly half the land area is peatland, and about three quarters of it is considered to be damaged peatland. A couple of projects are under way at the moment. From what I hear, those projects are on croft apportionments, but crofters are reluctant to get involved because the landlords own the carbon credits. What is your view on that point? Is that an issue across the Highlands and Islands?

Amendment 271 relates to the licensing scheme for muirburn that forms part of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024. The muirburn licensing scheme is not yet in force, following the minister’s recent decision to delay commencement of the scheme until next year, which followed the devastating wildfires near Carrbridge and Dava. At the time, the minister noted that the delay would

“provide us with the time and opportunity to carefully consider the upcoming changes to muirburn and how these changes can be brought forward in a way which does not adversely affect our ability to prevent and respond to wildfires.”—[Written Answers, 9 October 2025; S6W-41119.]

After this year’s devastating wildfires, that approach is sensible.

On 9 September, the minister asked NatureScot, the Cairngorms National Park Authority, Scottish Land & Estates and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association to test the licensing scheme, principally to see whether licences would be granted on peatland for the purpose of preventing and reducing the risk of wildfire. The test required landholders to prepare and submit licensing applications relating to their own circumstances and to follow NatureScot’s licensing guidance in doing so. All test applications were completed by qualified land agents or specialist contractors. The test has now been concluded and feedback has been provided to the minister, and it is clear that there are issues with the scheme, which stem from the primary legislation.

Amendment 271 seeks to fix those issues in a targeted way, while retaining the central architecture of the licensing scheme, by changing two aspects of the provisions governing the granting of licences to make muirburn on peatland.

First, the amendment seeks to remove the presumption in favour of other methods of vegetation control if those methods are more practicable than muirburn. In effect, that provision prioritises methods such as cutting and grazing over muirburn, which, in the context of preventing and reducing the risk of wildfire, is not appropriate. Fuel load is the only aspect of fire behaviour that can be controlled ahead of wildfire taking hold, and muirburn is generally the most effective means of removing the fuel in its entirety. For that reason, prescribed burning is practised internationally to remove fuels in cooler months before they become a problem. Other methods, such as cutting, retain fuel in the landscape, and although rewetting plays a valuable role in promoting resilience to wildfire in the landscape, it does not remove fuels in the same way as muirburn can.

Secondly, amendment 271 seeks to replace the test of necessity with that of appropriateness. Evidencing that muirburn is necessary for the specified purpose constitutes a very high legal bar, which was one of the main reasons why licences were refused by NatureScot in the test phase. I propose to substitute “necessary” with “appropriate”, with NatureScot retaining regulatory oversight.

Members will recall that, during stage 2 of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill, we unanimously agreed that approved training courses should be put in place for practitioners who make muirburn. An approved training course comprises both theoretical and practical elements. The practical element ensures that a practitioner can make muirburn safely in the confines of a training environment under the direction of experienced instructors. However, Bright Spark Burning Techniques and Scottish Land & Estates have identified that training is not a licensable purpose for making muirburn. Given the requirement to complete an approved training course with practical components, it seems that that is an oversight that should now be corrected.

In addition, Bright Spark Burning Techniques is now actively training the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to make muirburn—or tactical backburns, as they are referred to in a wildfire context. That is the technique of removing the fuel in front of the face of a wildfire by burning towards it. Such activity falls under the definition of training, for which there is currently no licensable purpose.

In addition, it will occasionally be appropriate for training of members of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to be conducted outside the normal burning season, so as to simulate conditions that are similar to those that might be faced in a wildfire.

Accordingly, amendment 271 also seeks to put beyond doubt that training is a valid purpose for making muirburn under licence from NatureScot. I hope that members will agree that my proposed amendments to the muirburn licensing scheme are reasonable and evidence based, and that they are required so that we do not adversely affect our ability to prevent and respond to wildfires.

I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say in response to the amendments in this group.