Chamber and committees

The point of amendment 17 is to ensure that the bill complies with the grounds on which it was set out. The bill is intended to deal with upland moorland management and grouse shooting, so the rationale behind amendment 17 is to remove other birds that are not part of upland moorland management or grouse shooting, meaning that other game birds could not be added to the list of birds that are controlled under the bill unless they have reached a level of scarcity resulting in their being on the amber or red list.

The reason for doing that is that the industry is extremely concerned that, at a later date, additions will be made to the bill to ban the legal pastime of game shooting, which I understand some people are not in favour of. If the minister is truly clear on the reasons for the bill, he will support amendment 17 so that there would need to be a clear rationale for adding birds to the schedule, rather than that just being done on a whim.

The minister’s amendment 61 relates to birds of prey, and I am extremely glad and thankful that the Government has listened to people who use birds of prey for falconry. It is a legitimate field sport, and I have huge respect for the people who pursue it. In some cases, it ensures the survival and diversity of such species by ensuring that there is a captive breeding programme, so that amendment is good news.

I hope that the minister will carefully consider my amendment 17. Its aim is not to frustrate the bill but to make sure that it does what it says on the tin, in that it applies to moorland management and grouse shooting, not other shooting that is recognised as an acceptable form of sport in Scotland.

The point is duly taken, convener. I press amendment 17.

Will the member give way?

I will speak to my amendment 28 first. I believe that a licence should be issued for a period of 10 years. The minister will argue that that is too long, which is why I have included in amendment 28 the ability for the Government to remove the licence or issue it for

“a period less than 10 years if the Scottish Ministers consider it necessary for environmental reasons”.

So, the baseline would be 10 years, but there would be the option for the Government to issue a licence for a period shorter than that. That is pragmatic, in the same way as we have driving licences for a period of time unless there is a reason why someone should not have a licence for that period.

I am taken by Kate Forbes’s amendments on approved training courses. Training courses on muirburn for everyone would be particularly helpful. It would be extremely helpful if firefighters went on those training courses to understand how to do muirburn, because one thing that is important about controlling wildfires is the ability to backburn and stop a fire from getting out of control.

I have to say that, when I was a muirburn practitioner, there was not always evidence that firefighters understood the principle of backburn, although perhaps there is now. I remember local fire officers on occasion giving control of the fire staff to keepers to allow them to direct how the backburn should be carried out, because they understood it and firefighters did not. I encourage that training, and I am sure that the minister would like firefighters to be trained to the best ability. If an approved training course is being run, why not get them on it as well?

I am not taken by Rhoda Grant’s amendment 151. We have to remember that muirburn is an option. There are other ways of reducing the fuel load, including flailing, although that does not necessarily always reduce the fuel load. It can often not be possible to get tractors on to moorland or into difficult areas. It is important that fuel loads can be managed by burning, but there are also other reasons for burning—it is not only about managing fuel loads, as Rhoda Grant’s amendment suggests.

Sorry, but, among my many faults, I am slightly deaf. Could you speak up?

I might have misunderstood. All that my amendment 23 would introduce is that muirburn should be undertaken for

“managing the habitats of moorland game or wildlife”.

I am simply saying that all wildlife is important, not just moorland game. I find it odd that you are in a position where you cannot accept that.

Joking aside, however, there is a very serious point. The Scottish Crofting Federation has made it clear that there are exceptional costs for placing adverts in local papers, which makes it prohibitive. Online works for most people, and online is where people go. That is a very simple system for giving notice.

I refute the GDPR issue, because notice can be given simply with the location of the site and a note of whom to contact. Let us be honest: I have yet to know of anyone who, in planning to carry out muirburn, does not speak to their neighbours. They probably co-ordinate it with them to ensure that they work together.

Although I am partially enthused by the minister’s response, my overall response is that I am disappointed, and I will press my amendment 31.

The minister is nothing if not predictable. I predicted that he was not going to like my proposed new section and amendments to that part of the bill, because they are about openness and transparency and they would bring the Government into the 21st century. Of course, that is what is being suggested under the Bute house agreement—in fact, I have written that part of the bill for the minister, so a review would not be needed. It does not need anything more than what I have suggested, and it would save on the cost of advertising—

In the spirit of co-operation, and because he will not come for a meeting with me, I am happy to give way, convener.

Across Scotland, it is very different. There is somewhere in the middle of Scotland that the minister might think is the best place to be. The Western Isles, of course, are a good place to be, as well.

My point is that those places are all completely different. They have completely different seasons. There might be snow up in the Cairngorms right the way through to April, yet there might not be snow in the Borders in March. The point of my amendments is to ensure that we recognise the geographical differences that each part of Scotland faces.

It is absolutely wrong to say that all ground-nesting birds nest at the same time, for example. I heard the argument during an evidence session that nesting periods have come forward. Well, they might have come forward in the more temperate bits of Scotland, but, in the Highlands and the more rugged bits, nesting seasons have not really come forward. Keepers know that and muirburn practitioners know it. They understand that and they understand the reason for ensuring that their muirburn is carried out at an appropriate time.

In my mind, trying to reduce the muirburn season by saying that all of Scotland is the same is a fallacy. That is such a mistake, and it does not recognise the different challenges that are experienced in different parts of Scotland. That is why I lodged amendments 25, 26, 39 and 40. I wanted to try to get to the situation in which we have a different season based on geographical location. One could argue that there should be a different season, as was done under the Hill Farming Act 1946, whereby you could carry on burning at higher altitudes until a later date because you probably would not be able to get there to do it at an earlier date. That is why there is sense in my amendments.

However, it is just not true to say that Scotland is all the same, that the Western Isles are the same as the Highlands or that the Borders are the same as Perthshire, and so we need one arbitrary date. For those reasons alone, I have lodged my amendments. I ask the minister and other members of the committee to consider carefully why the amendments are there and why we need to do this.

I also believe that, when we are talking about the muirburn season, we must be cognisant that the people who are carrying out the burning are doing it for good reasons and are not out there to burn birds that are sitting on nests. If there is any risk of that, they do not do it. I am asking that we have trust in them and let the geographical area, not a centralised policy based on a centralised Government agency, dictate the burning season.