Chamber and committees

Okay.

I do not think that we are doing anything up here. Back in March, Kate Rowell said:

“There is a real lack of certainty among farmers. They do not know what is coming.”

Pete Ritchie—I believe that you got a letter from him and Vicki Swales yesterday—said:

“We are in a holding pattern ... We were expecting a big bang, but there is just a very small squeak at the moment.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 12 March 2025; c 4.]

I understand that, in the letter that you received yesterday, three significant organisations resigned from the agriculture reform implementation oversight board and said that the rural support plan, which will not be published until the new year, is weak. Do you have any comments on that?

That is where we disagree, because I think that what I have said has everything to do with what is in front of us. This is a case of divide and rule, is it not? The Government brings forward tiny parts or segments and we talk about those individually, but we never talk about the overall message that we are trying to send. The overall message is that, on both sides of the argument, pretty much every stakeholder is saying that we are not going anywhere fast enough. That is not about major cliff edges; it is about the direction of change and the new policies that are needed.

Let us go back to the fundamental point—

I realise that you might not have been part of the Government at that time, but the Government is the Government and it does not really matter who the minister in charge is; what matters is the flow of work over a period.

Mr Burgess, who is sitting next to you, asked for information on a new market garden support scheme in February 2024, which was more than a year and a half ago. Where are we with that now?

There is a lot to unpack in the discussion that we have just had. I liked what Rachael Hamilton said about the importance of looking at land use through the lens of the bill. That is a critical point. Although I accept the cabinet secretary’s point that food production and looking after and preserving the environment can go together, there is great concern among our rural communities across Scotland. In Huntly, a farm was bought and put into trees and more areas are being put into rewilding, biodiversity and renewable energy. All that is taking land away from food production. What we are trying to get on the record is the importance of food production to any country, including Scotland, and of making sure that we think about protecting that moving forward, so I will press amendment 324.

Rachael Hamilton makes an important point about rural crime; it is on the rise and we need to deal with it. A lot of good work is being done, particularly by Rachael Hamilton, so I fully support amendment 289.

I failed earlier to mention Douglas Ross’s and Jamie Halcro Johnston’s amendments, which came in in the past week. Rhoda Grant summed it up: I am not confident that we are going to get the answers that we want. We can vote for the amendments today, because they give the Government a clear indication that we all believe that we need that information.

I support amendment 307. This is not an unusual practice: it is common in chartered surveyor territory, when an application goes in from a crofter, a landowner or someone like that, for the applicant to pay for the instruction of a rural surveyor and their legal advice—I should declare an interest in that regard. The best example that I can think of is when the rules came in about mobile telephone masts. When providers were given access to land and could put telephone masts wherever they wanted, they had to pay for a rural surveyor to advise the landowner on the compensation that should be available.

I support the amendment because communities across Scotland are, to some extent, being left abandoned when it comes to renewable energy. Why not have a scheme in place or require the developer to pay fair compensation, so that those communities can access professional support? I commend amendment 307.

I have nothing more to add. I press amendment 321.

Members may remember that this is not my first time talking about muirburn and wildlife management, as I argued for very similar amendments at stage 3 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. In 2024, the Scottish Parliament passed the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, which prevents anyone from making muirburn on land without first acquiring a licence.

Following two delays that were due to stakeholder concern, the licensing scheme is due to come into force next year. The effect of that might be that fewer people are able to make muirburn or that people will stop muirburn altogether, curtailing work that is obviously necessary to prevent devastating effects—such as the very damaging wildfires at Carrbridge and Dava in the Cairngorms this year—from taking place again. The devastation and scale of those fires cannot be overstated. They are considered to have been the largest such wildfires in Scottish history, and they burned more than 11,000 hectares of moorland and forestry. Licensing will only make it harder for skilled land managers to carry out preventative muirburn. That will mean an increase in combustible fuel loads and potentially the loss of those in the industry who played such a vital role in containing the recent fires.

My amendment 325 would therefore repeal part of the muirburn licensing scheme conditions from the 2024 act—that is, the conditions related to applications for making muirburn on peatland. It would mean that all land, whether peatland or not, would be subject to the same conditions when a licence is being considered.

My amendment 326 would go further and seeks to completely repeal the muirburn licensing scheme, removing it from the 2024 act for the reasons that I have already stated.

My amendment 327 was lodged in response to those wildfires. We know, and I have stated before on the record, that many businesses and land managers were involved in tackling those wildfires to the benefit of communities. I remain incredibly grateful to communities—and to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—for coming out in support during that time. Amendment 327 would provide that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service must set up a wildfire response unit to manage and protect land in the event of wildfire, with appropriate vehicles, aerial support, commanders with enhanced authority and so on. I am aware that the minister has been doing some work in this area, and I am grateful for the round-table discussion that he put together. Unfortunately, I could not make it to that, but I still want to push at length to the committee the importance of making sure that we have provision in Scotland to tackle any wildfire in any part of Scotland.

I am not going to go over old ground, as we have already had quite a big debate on this matter, but I fully support Rachael Hamilton’s amendments. Amendment 35 is causing considerable upset in rural communities across Scotland, and I still do not see the need for it. We very recently got back an FOI response from NatureScot, and I will tell you what questions we asked.

First, we asked NatureScot to outline the number of grouse moor licence applications that it received annually, and it said that, in 2024, there were 265 licences, and in 2025, 38. We then asked it to outline the number of applications for grouse moor licences that had been rejected because the area of land that was specified in the application was incorrect. It replied that only two applications were rejected in 2024, and that was only because the applicants did not provide grid reference numbers. None was rejected in 2025.

Importantly, we then asked NatureScot to outline the number of grouse moor licences that had been revoked because a licence holder had been acting outwith the area specified in the licence. The answer was none. Finally, we asked it to specify the number of offences committed by licence holders on land outwith the application, and the answer, again, was none.

There is no reason for amendment 35. Some lobby group must have convinced the minister of the need for it, but there is no evidence to support it at all, as far as I am aware, and no evidence that NatureScot, in its own words, has ever been aware of, either.

First, I am no expert on muirburn, but my understanding is that when muirburn is done on peatland areas, it does not burn the peat itself; it burns above it. It is all about getting rid of a buildup of stock that could cause significant fires and affect communities. That is why I think that it is possible to bring the two things together.

Secondly, you have just said that you are giving it serious consideration before you bring the licences into effect, but there have already been two delays. Can you therefore tell us what you are doing? Are you speaking widely with stakeholders? As far as the licences are concerned, what do you hope to put in place that will enable the stakeholders—the practitioners—to do this? Basically, I am asking how we keep communities safe. What are you looking for that will keep communities safe?