People who usually urge us to take conservation measures are contacting us with concerns about the science behind the closure. Everyone wants to make sure that every stock of fish is healthy, but the trouble is that you are asking people to forgo a quarter of their annual income on the basis of science that they do not really trust, which makes the proposition difficult.

The committee also faces a motion to annul the order, which we will have to make a decision on. It seems to me that a vague indication that the Government might look at things in a couple of years’ time will not be satisfactory to the people who are coming to us about this issue. Is there a way to look at things again, to ensure that those less harmful methods of fishing can be allowed? Those who cannot move out of the area will have no alternative but to shut up shop for three months. Is there a way to come back with a new instrument or a guarantee that, next year, something quite different might come before the committee? We are making decisions about people’s livelihoods without convincing science.

I want to really push you on the issue. If evidence came to the fore, before you were due to renew or change the instrument, would you introduce a new order?

We should perhaps write to the Scottish Government to ask what discussions it has had with the Danish Government on fisheries. I understand that we do not fish for sand eel at all, but I think that the species is important to the Danish fishery. It would be good to understand what discussions were held with the Danish and whether there are any implications for international negotiations on fisheries.

I will press you a wee bit in relation to juvenile cod being discarded by the prawn fishery trawling industry. The evidence that we have received suggests that the closure approach is wrong and that most juvenile cod are caught by trawling. What evidence do you have that that is not the case and that the gear that is used allows cod to escape? It seems that the policy is not based on scientific evidence as such and that creelers and divers, which have very little impact, as we know, are being caught up in the closures. That probably is not having the impact that we are looking for.

Can you give the committee any assurance that you will look at the matter again and in a shorter timescale?

Amendment 146 is in a similar vein to Kate Forbes’s amendment 88; mine also covers muirburn on both peatland and non-peatland. The wildfire in Cannich last year highlights the need to manage fuel load on peat as well as in other areas. It seems wrong to me that we spend money on restoring peatland only for those efforts to be ruined by an intensely burning wildfire. It is sometimes the case, therefore, that muirburn is the most effective way to manage the fuel load, and it should be used as such. Perhaps there should be a duty on land managers to manage fuel load in order to mitigate the harm caused by wildfire. The problem is that the science in this area is not yet conclusive, which makes it challenging to legislate. We need to ensure that what we put down in legislation can be adapted to fit future scientific knowledge. That said, it seems clear that leaving a large fuel load on land is dangerous. Leaving it on degraded peat is disastrous, and we have heard and seen evidence to show that muirburn has caused little harm on well-maintained peatland. My amendments acknowledge the role to be played by muirburn in peat restoration and protection.

Amendment 149 ensures that any regulations that modify the list of purposes for muirburn are subject to full consultation and scrutiny by the committee. I hope that that would give members some confidence in ensuring that any changes are fully scrutinised and will be in line with the science at the time.

I get it that stakeholders are involved, but it does not say anywhere that the stakeholders have to agree to the code. That is why I am looking for better scrutiny. As with my other amendments, I would be happy if the minister would discuss that ahead of stage 3 to find out whether we can put something in place that will ensure that Parliament has some level of scrutiny so that, if there are concerns about the code, they could at least be heard.

The committee had a useful session on Monday with small-scale producers. It was clear that they do not get a huge amount of Government support, especially those with properties that are under 3 hectares. They told us that they are sequestrating carbon. A lot of them are carbon negative and get nothing for that. Although they do not want carbon trading, they are very keen that the work that they are doing is supported, especially when considering things such as local food networks. How will you support the small operations that are putting an awful lot back into their communities and helping with our environmental targets?

Okay. That means that the code is prescriptive. Will it be laid before Parliament? Where is the oversight? Who will be involved in its development? How will it be monitored and evaluated? Where is the consultation on what it contains? It appears to me that there is no subordinate legislation governing this at all. It is important enough that it should be subject to at least the affirmative procedure.

My amendment 124, along with many of the others that I have lodged, seeks to create greater scrutiny of and consultation on actions that will flow from the bill. Much of it is enabling, and it is important that secondary legislation that will flow from it will also be scrutinised.

Currently, the bill lists only red grouse as requiring a section 16AA licence, but other birds may be added to the list in the future. My amendment stipulates that the relevant committee of this Parliament must be consulted and given time to take evidence on any additions before reporting back to the Scottish Government. Thereafter, in laying its legislation, the Scottish Government must explain what consideration it has given to the committee’s report. I am trying to create a super-affirmative procedure in order to provide greater scrutiny. I believe that that is essential, given the increase in the amount of enabling legislation that comes to the Parliament.

I believe that my amendment would fulfil the aims of Edward Mountain’s amendment 17 regarding consultation. However, I cannot support his other amendments or Rachael Hamilton’s amendments. The legislation needs to be future proof, so amendment must be allowed of the list of birds that can be taken under a section 16AA licence. However, my amendment would ensure that such a change was made after full scrutiny by the Parliament.