I want to press home this point, because all the communication that we are getting from the industry is that it does not know what is going to happen. The longer that people wait, the more fearful they become.

Amendment 172 is similar to previous amendments that I have lodged to try to bring a degree of scrutiny of subordinate legislation to the bill.

It is clear that knowledge of how muirburn affects peat and what different depths of peat mean for different management techniques will depend on the science, which is not clear at the moment. As is demonstrated by the array of amendments in front of us today, the minister cannot pretend that there will be consensus on that, even if the science becomes clearer. Therefore, the impact of any change in the depth of peat that is used in the definition must be properly scrutinised.

I fear that the minister is more interested in avoiding scrutiny than in saving parliamentary time. It is Parliament’s role to scrutinise the Government, on behalf of our constituents, so I hope that the minister will at least accept amendment 172.

My amendments in this group refer to the muirburn code, which is fundamental to the practices of licence holders. The Scottish Government has not given Parliament any indication of what the code will look like, so the amendments aim to ensure that, before it is enforced, the code is consulted on, scrutinised and evaluated by Parliament. I believe that that covers the amendments that have been lodged by Edward Mountain.

I understand what the minister says about burdens on the Parliament. However, the trouble is that we have so much enabling legislation, in which powers are set out to introduce measures through secondary legislation, but without a promise of scrutiny on the use of those powers. Given that I have lodged a number of amendments in the same vein, is the minister willing to meet me to discuss an amendment at stage 3 that would make sure that there is adequate consultation, that stakeholders are consulted and that there is scrutiny of any changes through secondary legislation? That would give people confidence that they will not be railroaded into anything that does not work properly for the industry.

My amendment 151 refers to issues that are to be taken into account when granting a muirburn licence on peat. The bill states that muirburn can be allowed only if there is no other option for the management of a fuel load. In evidence, we heard that although cutting kills plants, it does not deal with the fuel load and, indeed, decaying vegetation can often be more flammable. Therefore, my amendment would allow muirburn on peatland for managing fuel load.

Amendment 151 aims to ensure that the prevention of wildfires is taken into consideration in considering a muirburn licence application. Alasdair Allan’s amendment 97, which he has just spoken to, seeks to do a similar thing. I believe that both amendments would work well together, and I urge members to support them.

I totally get what the cabinet secretary is saying about the difference between the bill and the plan. The bill has to be wide, but it is the rural support plan that could make or break businesses and which will show the direction of travel for agriculture. That is why people want to see a draft of what the Government’s thinking is. It does not need to be nailed down at this point, but it is why we are getting so many representations on it.

The bill does not really provide for much scrutiny of the plan. Where is the consultation? Where is the monitoring and evaluation? Where is the parliamentary scrutiny? If people knew that the plan was going to be scrutinised—not in the same way as the bill, but still scrutinised closely—it would give them a degree of comfort that they would be able to feed in their views. If the first iteration was not right, people could go back to the drawing board. The real fear is that, in 2025, it will be a case of take it or leave it.

I think that my supplementary question has been answered.

The code is part of the overarching aim of the bill, but it is a tool, so it is not prescriptive—is that what you are saying? How will you achieve the overarching aim of the bill if the code is not prescriptive?

Would you allow somebody who did not comply with the code of practice to draw down funds under the scheme?

Cabinet secretary, you are not really giving us any reassurance on this incredibly important issue. I think that we all understand why you have not put a definition in the bill, but what you are saying would sway us towards having a definition in the bill. You are saying that the definition in the code of practice will not be scrutinised but that it should and would underpin the future development of how people access funding.

I ask again, how will the code of practice be consulted on and overseen? From what I can figure out from the bill, it will be laid before Parliament for no other reason than for information. Should the definition be scrutinised by Parliament much more thoroughly?