On amendment 256, I support the intention behind the proposal and the underlying policy aim, as it would enable the Scottish Government to make regulations for a fixed-penalty notice regime in order to enforce local authority byelaws aimed at the prevention of wildfires. However, I do not believe that the bill is the right place for that change.

As the committee is aware, part 3 of the bill includes similar regulation-making powers that will enable national park authorities to issue fixed-penalty notices for byelaw breaches within national parks. That will be an important additional enforcement tool, including for the new fire management byelaws that will come into force in the Cairngorms national park in the spring. Those fire management byelaws aim to deter irresponsible behaviour and ensure improved compliance and behaviour change in order to reduce the growing risk of wildfires. They will form part of the integrated wildfire management plan within the national park, which will include enhanced patrols at key sites, training for rangers, signage, a targeted wildfire communications campaign and co-ordination with landowners, NGOs, public bodies, businesses and communities.

I can understand why Emma Roddick has proposed similar fixed-penalty notice powers for local authorities that may be considering whether to introduce fire management byelaws in their areas. In my view, however, more detailed work needs to be done at this stage before proposing legislative changes, so I cannot support amendment 256. We have to consult local authorities and other partners to ascertain the most effective means by which to prevent and manage wildfires.

It is important to note that, similar to how the fixed-penalty notice regime is likely to work in national parks, we would not expect the full costs of enforcing the byelaws to be covered by income from financial penalties.

Various discussions have been held with the UK Government about banning peat, but it should be borne in mind that we had a change of Government last year, so the conversations that we had with the previous Government are not the same as those that we are having with the current Government. If I continue going through my notes, I will perhaps answer some of your questions.

Banning the sale of peat in Scotland ahead of the rest of the UK risks our industry in Scotland and the vast number of jobs that it supports. Having a backstop for the legislation to come into force creates risks of an exclusion from the UKIMA if agreement with the four nations is not reached before then. The process that is implied by the amendments is not feasible within the timescales.

I will make one point. We had an effective ban on glue traps, which was caught by the UKIMA during the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill, and that has still not come into effect. The point that I am making is that, rather than our trying to do this individually to make some sort of statement, we should be doing it in collaboration with the rest of the UK, and that is what I am trying to do.

I absolutely accept that, but I did not call it “ridiculous”. I called it “ludicrous”.

They were experimental.

I believe that the legislation would have been robust enough, except that 94 boundaries were redrawn after NatureScot had started to implement them. It was robust enough, but this goes back to the trust issue: 94 boundaries were redrawn, and that causes doubt. We are now in a position of having to put in place proper legislation so that there is no doubt.

It is quite the opposite: I am trying to put legislation in place that will be above and beyond doubt for anyone. It should, in reality, be a benefit to landholders because they know that the legislation will be above and beyond doubt, and that strengthens their arguments.

The minister is absolutely fine, I assure you.

I am saying that the matter is now very much on my radar due to the attention that you and Mr Ewing have brought to it. I will look at everything in the strategic action plan, and we will start to develop solutions that will, I hope, reach the affected communities and give them the right solutions that they can live with, while also avoiding any massive effect on the gull populations.

We do not need legislation to do that. As I have stated, the issue was brought to my door and I am dealing with it as quickly and efficiently as I can. We have complex issues to deal with around populations, including where they are and how they live. The strategic action plan is in place so that we can start looking into how we get to the solutions.

I can only reiterate that I take on board all members’ concerns and I am more than happy to continue to work with them. If members want to bring individual points to me, I am more than happy to look at them as well. However, there are a number of reasons why I cannot support the amendments today. If they are moved, I ask the committee not to support them, but please be assured that I will continue to work to ensure that we find solutions to the problems that people raise.

Convener, I see that you are impatient. Are you prepared to allow me to continue?