I appreciate that this is a supplementary question, but I wonder whether I could split it in two. My first question is about the science relating to the Irish Sea. I appreciate that there are connections and similarities between Firth of Clyde cod and those in the Irish Sea. What data, if any, on stocks and their viability has been drawn from the Irish Sea, and has it been applied in the Clyde area?

My other question is about the cod box and the preferred spawning grounds for cod. What kind of sea bed are we talking about? Are we talking about sandy mud, muddy sand or sand? In identifying areas with those types of sea bed, has the precautionary principle been applied? What was the thinking around that?

Unfortunately, withdrawal of the MV Caledonian Isles comes at a crucial time, as we approach the busier summer timetable period. Communities across the network are anxiously awaiting an update on deployment proposals for all CalMac’s other major vessels while the MV Caley Isles is out of action. Can the minister assure my constituents that no island community will be forced to bear the brunt of that disruption in the weeks to come?

I am interested in the member’s theory that there are policies that a devolved Scottish Government could pursue that would somehow release the untold billions in products of economic growth that he mentioned. Could he explain to me how that would be possible, given that VAT, corporation tax and most of the extra taxes that such businesses would pay all go to the UK Government?

On the basis of the offer that the minister has made to work with me ahead of stage 3, I will not move amendment 90.

Amendment 90 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

I appreciate that time is wearing on, so I will make a brief point. It is a technical point, but I hope also an important one.

There will be a lot of secondary legislation on the back of this bill, and there is a concern to ensure that the balance is right in how that is scrutinised. What are your plans for parliamentary scrutiny around secondary legislation, particularly in relation to getting the balance right with regard to negative procedure for secondary legislation?

Is it the fact that we agree that presents a problem?

Amendment 97 would change the test that an application must pass for a licence to be granted for the undertaking of muirburn on peatland. The bill currently sets out that a licence may be granted for muirburn on peatland if it

“is necessary for the specified purpose”

and

“no other method of vegetation control”

is available. During consideration of evidence at stage 1, a number of interested parties raised the concern that there might be circumstances in which other methods of vegetation control may be available, but they may not be practicable or effective in all circumstances. They expressed real worry that the wording in the bill would significantly restrict the ability to make muirburn to such an extent that it would be impossible to carry out muirburn on peatland.

I do not think that it was the intention that the bill place such a high bar on licence applications. It would be preferable if NatureScot considered such matters on a case-by-case basis, including whether any other methods of vegetation control would be suitable, and, as a result, whether a licence should be issued. It is likely that there will always be other methods of vegetation control available, such as cutting, but they might not be practical or desirable; for example, due to the topography of the land.

My amendment would ensure that NatureScot could consider, on a case-by-case basis, any practical issues arising from alternative methods of vegetation control, and it would give NatureScot the flexibility to issue a licence for muirburn if no other method of vegetation control was practical. It is my hope that local people, such as those in my constituency, would be listened to as part of that process, to allow their knowledge and experience to inform decision making. In the same way, there is expertise in NatureScot that should also be listened to in order to inform local practice. That dialogue and working together will increase and improve everyone’s knowledge about muirburn and local peatlands.

For all those reasons, I encourage members to vote for amendment 97, not least because it responds to one of the recommendations in our stage 1 report.

It is not within the scope of my amendment, but I certainly acknowledge the need to control the spread of Lyme disease, which has been an issue in parts of my constituency. We should of course be open to looking at all measures around that.

My amendment, however, focuses on ensuring that crofters continue, where appropriate, to carry out muirburn on their crofts or common grazings for the purposes of reseeding or to provide or improve grazing, as they have done for generations. I hope that, whatever the Government’s reaction to my amendment is, the minister will be willing to work with me on the issue in the future.

I should have explained that amendment 94 merely gives the legal definition of a crofter for the purposes of amendment 90. That amendment not having been passed, amendment 94 does not make much sense on its own, so I will not move it.

Amendment 94 not moved.

Amendment 24 not moved.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

After section 10

Amendment 149 not moved.

Section 11—Grant of muirburn licence