Chamber and committees

I certainly take that intervention in the spirit in which it was meant. I did not question Ms Harper’s knowledge of what medicines do; I was politely suggesting, knowing full well that it was not she who lodged amendment 83, that a farmer or land user who may use medication on animals cannot just go and buy it from some supermarket or off the dark web. People cannot buy a tonne of medicated grit off the dark web. They buy it with a vet’s prescription, following the correct procedures, and they cannot then just scatter it wherever they need to, as the veterinary person who has issued the scrip for that grit must assure themselves that it is being used in accordance with that scrip.

If there is any doubt about medicated grit good practice, that can be found under the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust’s “Best practice use of medicated grit”, which includes a 28-day withdrawal period.

I am disappointed to hear what the minister has said, specifically in relation to amendments 180 and 16. He almost indicated that he was prepared to go on amendment 180 in the sense that it would require consultation and he said that consultation would take place. I am unsure why he does not want to support amendment 180.

I am also unsure why he would not want to support amendment 16, because that just asks for people who are using the traps to be included in the design and content of the courses.

I understand why the minister is not able to support amendment 14, but I take heart from the fact that he said that the cost of the course should be reasonable. I would be prepared not to move amendment 14, provided that the minister would be prepared to discuss with me a form of wording that would enable that to be reflected in the bill. I heard what the minister said about amendment 13 and if he is prepared to move his position on amendment 14, I would be in a position not to move amendment 13, as it also tries to limit the overall cost.

As we are sticking to a depth of 40cm in the definition, I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 45 not moved.

Amendment 171 not moved.

Amendment 170 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

I believe that the member’s amendment is important for those reasons, but does he accept that carrying out muirburn on grassland could also have the benefit of removing problems that cattle and crofters face with ticks? That could help to limit the spread of Lyme disease, which is a serious problem across the Highlands.

Some people will think that my amendments in this group are wrecking amendments, but they are absolutely not, because I am seeking to get the minister to explain why the code is needed. I have been involved in muirburn since I was 18 years old and, without embarrassing myself, that was 44 years ago and I have done a considerable amount of it.

Muirburn may have changed during those 44 years, but the reasons for doing it have not. You need to manage vegetation, because if you do not it becomes rank and of low value to flora and fauna and certainly shades out the pioneer growth that comes underneath. For me, muirburn is about creating a mosaic, and there is a careful way of doing that to ensure that we have mixed habitats across moorlands where we have pioneer communities. Those communities may be as low as individual grassworts or plagioclimax, which is short heather and bluebell heather, or they may be climax vegetation, which is the longer rank heather. All those things have a part to play.

Pioneer communities are particularly important for hares and similar species. Plagioclimax communities are important for ground-nesting birds in allowing them to move around with small chicks and get insects, and climax vegetation is important in allowing nesting sites for more apex predators such as hen harriers. Therefore, each of those communities provides a niche of habitats for different species. Diversity is the key to this.

Controls have been placed on deer because they are blamed for damaging the hills, and I would sometimes agree that they do. However, that is because they are delving into the pioneer and plagioclimax communities, which provide the best grazing for them. They do not touch the old rank climax vegetation; in fact, very few species do. They are there, and I am trying to ensure that we have diversity.

Muirburn is about burning vegetation. Some people are under the misapprehension that it is about burning peat, but it is certainly not about that. It needs to be understood that it is about removing the vegetation to allow new vegetation to come through.

It is not random. It has never been randomly carried out on the hills but is very carefully managed. I say to members of the committee that it ain’t easy. Anyone who has done it will know that there are huge effects that can make muirburn difficult; whether it is rain, wind or snow, it all plays a part.

It is important to understand that carrying out muirburn requires a skilled practitioner who understands what can be safely achieved within a period. Burning a slope can be easily controlled if the wind is in the right direction; if it is in the wrong direction, however, you will have problems.

The plan, at all stages, is to burn rotationally. I will spend a wee moment on that, because it is really important. People who have been up and looked at heather habitats know that heather regenerates at different speeds. I could certainly take you to bits of hill where heather will regenerate such that you would have no idea that burning has taken place five to six years after it has been done. I could also take you to other bits of hill where it would still be noticeable 12 to 15 years afterwards.

The fallacy of the bill is the fact that we are talking about burning on peat depth. If you go up into the high montane, where you should not be burning, there is very shallow peat depth where there is a schist underneath it, which means that to burn it would be dangerous. It is bad for that montane. In some ways, burning where there is a more equal peat depth is far more sustainable. I do not like the fact that the bill talks about narrowing it down to peat depth.

I have no idea how you can look at an entire burn area—where you are going up and doing 100 or 200 square metres—and work out the peat depth across that whole 100 or 200 square metres to work out whether you can burn it. I think that that is dangerous.

With these amendments, I want to understand where the minister is coming from and where he believes that the current muirburn code is wrong—because, if implemented, the current muirburn code is correct. Of course, I would say that, because I worked on the muirburn code when it was first brought out. However, I am confident that if you read through all the muirburn code guidance, which is a very straightforward document, you would feel confident that, if muirburn was carried out in line with that guidance, there would be nothing wrong with it.

My plea is for the minister to explain to me why licensing is required when we have a decent code. We do not need to introduce licences, but rather to enforce the code that we have, and to rely on and use the skills and experience of those people who are on the hills and who understand the hills that they—and perhaps their fathers and grandfathers before them—have worked on perhaps all their lives. We need to understand that they have a real argument to bring to the table about why the management of muirburn is best done under the code and not under a licence system.

I am interested to hear what the minister says to the arguments that I have raised and why he thinks that a licence is more appropriate than a properly enforced code.

I move amendment 22.

I listened carefully to what the minister said. It is clear that he understands that, when I lodged those amendments, they defined what is not moorland—that is, improved grassland. I am not sure how the minister could think that improved grassland would include people’s gardens, or that land suitable for cropping would impinge on people’s gardens. The amendments try to define it in more detail than Gillian Martin’s amendments did when she lodged them.

I am happy that my amendments are correct, and I am not convinced by the minister’s argument. I urge committee members to vote in favour of my amendments to ensure that there is no dubiety, which I believe there is at the moment. I will press amendment 181.

Amendment 32 is a very simple amendment, which I am sure the minister will whole-heartedly embrace, because there is no point reinventing the wheel if the wheel is already there. My suggestion, under the amendment, is that

“the Muirburn Code produced for the Scottish Government by Scotland’s Moorland Forum and published on 22nd September 2017”,

which was adopted by the Scottish Government, be the first code. It seems to be an extremely good and workable document, and it has been endorsed by NatureScot, whose staff would no doubt be the people who would draw up the new code.

Rhoda Grant’s amendments in the group set out to prepare a muirburn code. Her amendment 163 would be irrelevant after my amendment had been accepted, and the rest of the amendments would be overtaken by the extremely sensible suggestion of using the code that already exists. That is all.

I move amendment 32.

I will make a little bit more ground first.

Something called Panacur was originally put on medicated grit; now, flubendazole is used, and it requires a veterinary prescription. People cannot just buy it and put it out.

I am happy to take an intervention from Ms Harper now.

I am just saying that my understanding of the amendment is that it would restrict what muirburn can be used for to reducing fuel loads. I am not sure that I have misunderstood that—although I may have done—but that is the point that I have come up with.

A licence for 10 years is entirely appropriate, unless the Government decides that, for environmental reasons, it should be less. I would be surprised if the minister did not want to accept that proposal or at least meet me to discuss it further.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 174 chimes with something that I said earlier. I remind members that it is often people who practise muirburn who have the best equipment to fight wildfires. Argocats get people and firefighting equipment up on the hill. Sadly but unsurprisingly, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service does not have access to all that equipment, because it might cost between £45,000 and £50,000 to equip an Argocat. It therefore seems entirely appropriate for firefighters, who often work beside gamekeepers and moorland managers, to go on the same muirburn course, so that they can work together. If that does nothing else, it will foster good relations and create greater understanding. For that reason alone, I support Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 174.