Chamber and committees

My amendment 27 would ensure that any changes to the muirburn season would be properly scrutinised. As I did on other amendments, I listened to the minister at stage 2, and I seek to amend the length of time for which the regulations must be laid.

Amendment 27 is required because climate change is already impacting on bird nesting seasons, and that is likely to continue. Therefore, we might need to change the muirburn season timing, but that must be consulted on and proposals must be laid before Parliament to ensure that the changes are necessary and that there would be no unintended consequences. It is difficult to understand why the minister is so averse to that kind of scrutiny. One would almost think that he believes that the Government will be in power forever.

Amendment 110 will also ensure that the Scottish SPCA powers are reviewed, which I tried to ensure with a previous amendment of mine. We need to evaluate third sector organisations’ involvement in detecting crime and gathering evidence. My concern is not about the Scottish SPCA itself, which does a wonderful job; it is about the precedent that is set.

I welcome the amendment, and I hope that the powers will be reviewed and that the review will ensure that other third sector organisations are not involved in crime detection or prosecution.

The minister is quibbling over six days. The only difference between our suggested approaches is that the minister talks about a convention of laying instruments before Parliament, whereas I am talking about putting that process in law. There is not a huge difference, but at least it would future-proof the legislation.

No, because a bird being on the red or amber list means that it is endangered. We cannot accept that an endangered bird, albeit a game bird, should be hunted at all.

My amendment 20 seeks to put in place a super-affirmative process for laying regulations to modify the purposes for muirburn under section 10(5). It will ensure that any regulations that modify the list of purposes for muirburn are subject to fuller consultation and scrutiny by a committee of the Parliament.

It was clear when we took evidence that the science around muirburn is not clear. Well-managed peatland can tolerate muirburn without any harm to the peat, but degraded peatland can be badly damaged.

It was also clear that wildfires are devastating to both peat and the natural environment in releasing a large amount of carbon into the atmosphere. We saw that in Cannich recently.

When a fuel load is left on moors, the risk of wildfire is raised. Climate change also creates the risk of wildfire. We need to monitor the use of muirburn as a tool and as a risk. Therefore, we need to be able to modify the purposes for which it can be used.

That said, such changes need consultation and scrutiny, and that is what my amendment 20 seeks to provide for. I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, but I listened carefully to what the minister said then about the time proposed. In his estimation, 120 days was too long. Amendment 20 would therefore change the period for which the regulations are laid to 60 days, which is half of what was previously asked for. I hope that that will meet with Government approval.

Currently, the muirburn code does not have to be laid before Parliament. At stage 2, I lodged amendments that sought to enable the code to be scrutinised under the super-affirmative procedure, but the Government rejected them.

All significant delegated powers should be properly scrutinised. Therefore, my amendment 26 seeks to insert a procedure that mirrors the Government’s process for agreeing the code of practice on deer management. That means that ministers must approve NatureScot’s code and lay it before Parliament under the negative procedure.

Amendment 28 seeks to remove the function relating to the code from the functions that ministers can delegate to NatureScot, as that would not be appropriate, given that NatureScot would develop the new procedure.

Amendments 24 and 25, which are consequential to amendment 26, would give initial responsibility for preparing and reviewing the muirburn code to NatureScot instead of the Scottish ministers.

As the process that I propose is one that the Scottish Government has used before, I hope that it will accept my amendments.

I move amendment 24.

I might be disappointed, but I am not totally surprised that the minister has rejected my amendments. His criticism of amendment 26, which mirrors the procedure for the deer management code of practice, is amazing and startling. The Government has legislated along those lines, and it now criticises its own legislation. I will press amendment 24.

My amendment 14 seeks to create greater scrutiny of and consultation on the secondary legislation and activities that will flow from the bill. Much of the bill relates to enabling powers, so it is important that any secondary legislation comes under scrutiny.

Currently, the bill lists only red grouse as birds for which a section 16AA licence is required. However, other birds could be added to the list in the future. My amendment stipulates that the relevant committee of the Parliament must be consulted and given time to take evidence before reporting back to the Scottish Government on any additions of birds to the schedule. Thereafter, the Scottish Government could lay its legislation while explaining what consideration it had given to the committee’s report.

I am trying to create a super-affirmative procedure to provide greater scrutiny, which I believe is essential, given the increase in the amount of enabling legislation that comes to the Parliament from the Scottish Government. I have lodged similar amendments to different sections of the bill to provide for such scrutiny.

The bill needs to be future proofed, so it is right to allow for the list of birds that can be taken under a section 16AA licence to be amended, but that should not simply happen without consultation.

I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2. I listened carefully to the concerns of the minister, who suggested that 120 days was too long a period for a draft order to be laid before the Parliament and that that might unduly delay the process. Amendment 14 therefore cuts that time in half, to 60 days. Although that is a shorter period, it allows for greater scrutiny than is currently proposed in the bill.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendments seek to ensure that no other birds can be added to the list, and Edward Mountain’s amendment 57 suggests that only birds on the UK birds of conservation concern red or amber list can be added. Surely a bird that is categorised on the red or amber list should not be hunted at all, so I cannot support their amendments.

Amendment 17 would allow for a review of the SSPCA’s powers. I have several concerns about the powers that will be given to the SSPCA under the bill. I have heard clearly the frustration that is felt by SSPCA officers who, when they are called out due to animal welfare concerns, are unable to record illegal activity or even to intervene to stop it. Police Scotland does not have the resources to police wildlife crime to any extent, let alone to the extent of providing a deterrent.

However, there are concerns about empowering a third sector organisation to provide law enforcement. One concern is about setting a precedent for third sector organisations to carry out police investigations. There are also concerns about training, governance, independence, resources—both financially and physically—and staffing.

Amendment 82 would leave out section 8A to reflect some members’ concerns. Through amendment 17, I have tried to find some middle ground. I listened to the minister at stage 2, when he suggested that a review after one year would not give enough time to review the process. Therefore, my amendment would ensure that the SSPCA’s powers were reviewed after five years and that the findings of that review were laid before the Scottish Parliament. That would give the Scottish Government the opportunity to review the extent to which the powers were being used, whether the courts were accepting the standard of evidence that was being provided and whether the SSPCA should continue to have those powers.

Edward Mountain’s amendment 81 says that the Scottish ministers must make regulations regarding the training of officers who are given the powers. I am unsure that that would be wise, because surely it should be the police who train officers in evidence-gathering techniques. Such techniques change from time to time, so having to regulate at every turn would be counterproductive for those officers. We should leave it to the police to provide such training to ensure that the skills are up to date.

Fort William is the outdoor capital of the UK, and yet a helicopter taking a casualty from the hills cannot land at its hospital. The people of Lochaber have been promised a new hospital for more than two decades. Will the Scottish Government make good on that promise?