Chamber and committees

Following stage 1, the then minister, Gillian Martin, received feedback from stakeholders asking for an exemption to allow falconers to take red grouse without requiring a licence. Amendment 61 seeks to address those concerns. Having considered the amendment, I agree with and support it.

The purpose of introducing the licensing scheme is to implement the recommendations of the Werritty review, which focused on the management of grouse moor and, in particular, raptor persecution associated with grouse shooting rather than with falconry. Without amendment 61, falconers would need to apply for a licence or would be able to hunt grouse only by using their birds of prey on land that was already covered by a licence. Given that falconers take only a small number of red grouse across Scotland each year, that seems unnecessarily burdensome. I ask the committee to mirror that view and to support amendment 61.

In the interests of ensuring that I have declared everything that I need to, I should add, at this point, that my daughter has bought me a birthday present of a day of falconry.

I move amendment 61.

We will come on to training, so, in the interests of time, do you mind if we come back to that later?

As I have just said, there would have to be a clear indication that a crime had taken place. However, as we are not legislating in that area at this moment in time, the amendment merely gives ministers the powers, which would have to be brought back to the Parliament. There are safeguards for the industry to make its own defence if those powers have to be brought into force.

I give you the commitment that we can meet before stage 3 to talk about the issue, but I ask you not to move amendment 149 at this stage.

I accept that there is variance, but I also accept that NatureScot has the ability to extend the muirburn season if that is required.

I see that Rachael Hamilton wants to intervene—I will take her intervention as well.

I have a request from Bright Spark for a face-to-face meeting, which I have agreed to, and we will look at what the requirements for the training will be. Does that satisfy you?

As I have said, the purposes that are listed in the bill for undertaking muirburn on peatland are limited, in recognition of the risk of serious and significant carbon emissions when burning either damages the peat or interferes with the natural carbon sequestration process that occurs on functioning peatlands. For that reason, the bill attempts to reach a balanced position between limiting the damage to peatlands that arises from muirburn and limiting the damage that arises from wildfire. That means that the process of undertaking any muirburn on peatland needs to be done more thoughtfully and only in limited circumstances. I therefore encourage Edward Mountain not to move amendment 23. If it is moved, I encourage committee members to vote against it.

Amendment 89, in the name of Kate Forbes, would add the terms “conserving”, “enhancing” and “managing” the natural environment to the purposes for muirburn on peatland. The current provision allows just for “restoring” the natural environment. As I explained to Edward Mountain, the provisions for muirburn on peatland are about reaching a balanced position. The increased purposes for undertaking muirburn that are proposed by amendment 89 are broader in terms than just “restoring” and would therefore open up the scope for when muirburn could take place on peatland.

For example, “managing” the environment is so wide that it would allow muirburn on peatland for any purpose whatsoever, without any restriction. I think that we can agree that that would not be appropriate, would put peatlands at unnecessary risk and would not align with our commitments to address climate change.

However, I appreciate where Kate Forbes is coming from, so, as with amendment 88, if Kate Forbes is happy not to move amendment 89, I will undertake to consider the matter further ahead of stage 3, to address some of the issues that she has outlined today.

Amendments 91, 92, 96, 98, 99 and 104, in the name of Kate Forbes, seek to include provisions in the bill that would ensure that the person who will undertake the muirburn has completed an approved training course. There is near universal agreement from stakeholders that, due to the risks and the potential for widespread damage when muirburn is not done correctly, anyone undertaking muirburn should be trained.

When the bill was introduced, the intention was for training to be a requirement of the muirburn code. However, having heard from a number of key stakeholders on the issue of training, including the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, it is clear to me that the importance of training demands that it be included in the bill. I therefore support those amendments.

Amendment 95, which is also in the name of Kate Forbes, would change the provisions regarding muirburn licences so that the Scottish ministers “must” grant a licence if

“they are satisfied that the person is a fit and proper person, having regard in particular to the applicant’s compliance with the Muirburn Code”.

I understand the intent behind the amendment, and I am particularly sympathetic to the point about changing “may” to “must”, should all other conditions that were previously listed at section 11(1)(a) and (b) be satisfied.

However, removing those conditions from the bill would remove a series of tests that need to be considered before a licence is granted. Replacing those conditions with a fit-and-proper-person test feels too limiting. Indeed, it could be argued that section 11(1)(a) already provides for some of that, in that an applicant’s compliance with the muirburn code is a key measure to be considered.

Section 11(1)(b) also matters. It gives NatureScot more discretion on when a muirburn licence might be granted, including the necessity of muirburn and whether there are practical alternatives. That discretion is required because there may be other reasons why it would not be appropriate for NatureScot to grant a licence that are not related to the applicant’s fitness or otherwise. For example, there may be circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to grant a licence due to environmental reasons or other factors.

Therefore, although I understand what Kate Forbes is trying to do, I cannot support her amendment as drafted. If she is happy not to move the amendment, I will undertake to look at the issue again, focusing on the “may” and “must” part of the provisions. However, if she moves the amendment, I encourage committee members to vote against it.

I offer Edward Mountain my apologies, convener, as I did not speak to amendment 37.

Predictable, yes.