Will the member take an intervention?

On Rachael Hamilton’s point about NatureScot telling people to put dogs on roofs, it did not do that. My understanding is that that advice was for ground-nesting birds that were causing a problem, so it was about dogs on the ground.

There is a problem here. The member has very effectively made this a public issue and he has got a lot of coverage of it, so lots of stuff has been said and urban myths start to spring up in such circumstances, of which I have just given one example. No one was told to put dogs on roofs; the advice was about dogs on the ground. We should make sure that we have clarity before we start to say that everything is a disaster—because it is not.

I would not agree to that at all. The practitioners themselves see the value of a licensing scheme. As the member will be well aware, less than 24 hours after my previous suspension of the introduction of the licensing scheme, there was a wildfire at Dinnet caused by somebody who was setting muirburn inappropriately.

Therefore, a licensing scheme is absolutely essential. It will be coming in, and the practitioners know that, but we will bring it in in a way that will allow gamekeepers and land managers to continue to do what they do in a manner that they can live with and that allows them to get the full training that they need.

I reiterate my previous point: I am having extensive conversations with land managers, practitioners and people who do the training, and I will continue to have those conversations to ensure that we get to a balanced position that will allow muirburn to continue, but in a safe way. Therefore, I recommend that Tim Eagle does not move his amendments or, if he does, that members oppose them.

On amendment 327, after last year’s wildfires, I absolutely share Tim Eagle’s aspirations to enhance our wildfire resilience moving forward; indeed, it is something that we have committed to doing. As I have already said, we have extensive engagement with relevant public bodies and external stakeholders, which must be maintained.

As I mentioned in relation to amendment 256, the Government is developing the Scottish wildfire strategic action plan, which is informed largely by the wildfire summit, cross-sector engagement and the ministerial round table with MSPs. That plan will include prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. We are only just beginning to develop the strategic action plan in preparation for next year’s wildfire season and beyond, and we are still carefully considering everything in the round. It is therefore important that we do not pre-empt any outcomes. Given the development of the plan, and the fact that the proposed amendment would place an unhelpful prescriptive duty on the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, which already carries out much of what has been proposed as business as usual, I do not support Tim Eagle’s amendment 327.

Amendment 271, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, seeks to make a number of changes to the muirburn licensing scheme. First, the amendment would add training generally as a stand-alone licensable purpose for making muirburn on any land, including peatland. Secondly, the amendment proposes to lower the threshold for granting a licence for muirburn on peatland to Scottish ministers being satisfied that the making of muirburn is appropriate rather than necessary for that specified purpose. Finally, amendment 271 would remove the additional test in relation to land that is peatland that would require Scottish ministers to be satisfied that

“no other method of vegetation control is practicable”.

If the member will allow me to continue, we will get to a lot of those points as I go through my notes.

On the addition of training, I absolutely support the intention behind the change, and I would be very happy to work with Beatrice Wishart to ensure that that purpose can be included in the muirburn licensing scheme. However, under the current wording, such training would not be linked to an approved training course. I want to make it absolutely clear that such an addition should not mean that a head keeper could just go out and train their junior keepers, because that would take us back to business as usual. If we are to consider adding training, it has to be through an approved training course, and I want to have that conversation with Beatrice Wishart.

As for the other two changes proposed by amendment 271, I fully appreciate the concern expressed by many about increased wildfire risk as a result of increased fuel loads and about the catastrophic damage that wildfires can cause to our peatlands, which I and lot of other members saw for ourselves over the summer. Muirburn is not the silver bullet; it has a role to play in mitigating wildfire in both prevention and response, but we must strike the right balance between protecting the peatlands from the potential negative consequences of muirburn and the devastation of wildfires. It is a tricky balance.

NatureScot has been working with stakeholders on test muirburn applications, as Beatrice Wishart has pointed out, and I will be talking to NatureScot and stakeholders about the outcomes of those applications, to ensure that we get the balance right. NatureScot’s scientific advisory committee was instructed to look again at the science around muirburn in the light of the increased wildfire risks, and the outcomes from that should be available early next year. It is a significant move, and I therefore ask Beatrice Wishart not to move amendment 271 and to work with me between stages 2 and 3 on updated wording in relation to training purposes for muirburn.

I also ask her to work with me and NatureScot between stages 2 and 3 on the peatlands aspects of the muirburn licensing scheme, to ensure that any changes that we make strike the right balance and do not undermine the effectiveness of the licensing scheme and the protections that it offers to peatlands. Therefore, I ask Beatrice Wishart not to move amendment 271. If it is moved, I ask other members to oppose it.

On Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 287, I absolutely recognise the importance of monitoring and reporting on wildfires, and I share the member’s commitment to improving our understanding of their impacts. However, legislation for that at this stage is unnecessary and risks duplicating work that is already under way.

As I have set out, we will have a Scottish wildfire strategic action plan, and I believe that everything that the amendment seeks to do, such as the assessing of impacts on wildlife, habitats and conservation and fire service capacity, is already being addressed in that work. Introducing a statutory reporting duty now would pre-empt the outcomes of the strategic plan and could result in reporting requirements that are not fit for purpose, because we do not know what will come out of the plan.

For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 287 as drafted, but I am happy to work with Rachael Hamilton at stage 3 to consider how we might provide certainty around the action that we will take, and we can work together on an amendment, if necessary. I therefore ask her not to move amendment 287. If it is moved, I urge members to oppose it at this stage.

The plan not being—

Let me finish. We went through that process at the time, and it was quite clear that the bill was introduced as a result of the fact that raptor persecution continued to happen in the location of grouse moors. The raptor persecution could be associated with owners of grouse moors, but it could not be proven. Various methods have been used to try to eradicate that particular crime, but they did not work. Therefore, this bill was introduced. Unfortunately, we are now in a position where people do not trust the landowners, as a result of what we have seen and the fact that there was a narrowing of the scope of licensed areas. That has put doubt in people’s minds again.

Time and again, in my entire work as a minister, I have said that we need to get ourselves to a position where rural sports, rural life and rural workers are highly regarded, not just by people who live in rural areas but the entirety of the people of Scotland. There is an opportunity to do that, and that is by taking away any risk or any dubiety about the behaviour that is happening on these estates.

I have not even started talking about the individual amendments in the group, but I am sure that we will get to them.

The strategic action plan that I have laid out will pick up all the points that Rachael Hamilton has just made. On all those issues, I am more than happy to talk to anybody about solutions that they want to bring forward, and we will feed that into the strategic action plan. There is nothing that I am not prepared to discuss, but I am not going to accept the amendments that have been lodged at this stage. I will go through the reasons why, but I am more than happy to discuss with any member how we can make that work going forward.

I will start with Tim Eagle’s last point, which is that the Government needs to take action. When I was appointed as minister, I was immediately made aware of the issue by Fergus Ewing and Douglas Ross. I took a call from both of those members and dealt with the immediate problems by taking appropriate action, and an area-wide licence was granted.

Since then, we have had various debates and statements about the issue. We have a strategic action plan, and regional round-table meetings will start in January—the dates have been set. There were concerns that we have had only one summit, in Inverness, but I said at the time that that would be the start of the process. We will have further summits in Fraserburgh, Eyemouth, Dumfries and Irvine, which should be completed by the end of January.

Bearing in mind that local authorities have the responsibility to fund work on environmental issues in their areas, I note that we are funding gull management plans in addition to each local authority’s funding.

We are raising a national awareness campaign, the resources for which are being developed as we speak. It will have a clear message about how to manage gulls and how people should manage themselves around gulls.

We are putting in place gull population data methodology for a national and urban gulls survey, which is currently being advanced.

We are also looking at best practice intervention management measures, with a focus on deterrence, infrastructure prevention and effective waste control. That is happening as we speak. In addition, the national gull forum will be established in the first part of 2026.

What I am trying to say is that the issue has been raised with me as the minister and I am taking it very seriously, but that cannot be the limiting point. We have to remember that there are protected species and, therefore, those protections should stay in place.

I will come on to all the points on the amendments that have been raised with me.

First of all, I absolutely understand Mark Ruskell’s frustration. I get that this was a previous Government commitment, but I assure the committee that, as a Government, we are absolutely committed to progressing with an effective ban on the sale of peat for horticulture in Scotland.

Indeed, we are making steady progress towards that. We had a consultation in 2023, and there was widespread support from retail and commercial horticulture; indeed, UK horticulture now uses a third less peat than it did in 2011. Since that consultation, we have engaged widely with the sector to inform the scope and timings of any ban in Scotland. I have visited nurseries that use peat both on a commercial basis and in direct sales to the public; there have been round-table discussions; and research commissioned by ClimateXChange that is soon to be published focuses on the challenges faced by commercial horticulture, in particular, as it plans its transition. I know that Rachael Hamilton does not like that word, but the fact is that we are transitioning away from the use of peat.

However—and the amendments allude to this—the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 would have an effect on such a ban. As drafted, the amendments would commit Scotland, in law, either to the vagaries of securing an internal market act exclusion or to playing the waiting game while the rest of the UK brought regulations into force on the same date. Such approaches would be neither advisable nor desirable; they would not provide the certainty that we need and, crucially, they would not supply certainty to the sector either.