Chamber and committees

Unless other members have comments, I will move to a substantive question. Is the committee content that the provision that is set out in the notification should be made in the proposed UK statutory instrument on biocidal products?

Members indicated agreement.

We will write to the Scottish Government to notify it of that. In that letter, we will ask the Government what monitoring will be carried out of the effect of the SI, not only on the Government but on stakeholders.

Moving on, does anyone have any comments on the retained EU law UK SI?

The beauty of submitting an amendment early is that it comes up early and you do not have sight of the minister’s amendment, which was lodged just prior to the window for lodging amendments closing. We kind of agreed among ourselves at the outset that we wanted to remove section 8, but that is as far as it went. I lodged my amendment to remove section 8 because I have very deep-felt concerns that section 8, as amended, would give powers to people who have never had such powers before.

I am a great believer in having respect for our police force and that it should be the police, not other people, who implement the law. I have always believed that. Therefore, I am concerned that the powers that will be given to the inspectors are greater than the powers that a policeman has. There is no need for a search warrant, there is no need for corroboration and no specified training is required. Therefore, identifying whether the person who turns up is trained and authorised is almost impossible. There is little or no training on pesticides, which means that collecting evidence on pesticides will be difficult. At the moment, as I am sure the minister knows, that issue is got around when an inspection is carried out by the police with a member of the agriculture department attending to identify and inform on pesticides.

I have real concerns about section 8, because I do not think that it clarifies all the issues that need to be clarified. It would remove powers and undermine the authority of the police, which I am against, and it would give powers to third parties who I do not believe are qualified or have the legal training to exercise such powers.

I hear what the minister has said, but I think that he is sending a very dangerous message, or an unconcerned message, to people who carry out field sports in Scotland. The industry is approved by law and regulation, and it should have confidence that it will be able to continue unless there is clear evidence that there is fear that the species that are being hunted will become extinct, which is why I specified that only species on the amber or red list may be added.

Do you agree that the Government, through you, is saying that it is not just about grouse moor management and that every field sport is in your sights?

Amendment 23 is simple in that it recognises that muirburn is carried out not only for moorland game but for wildlife. Most people will accept that muirburn has beneficial effects for ground-nesting birds such as grouse, snipe and other nesting species that require short heather for moving their chicks around. It also has benefits for other species, such as hares, blackcock, peregrine and hen harriers. In fact, everything benefits from muirburn, in my opinion, which is why I want to add the fact that it is for

“managing the habitats of moorland game or wildlife”.

That is, there are two reasons why muirburn should be allowed.

Turning to the other amendments in the group, I believe that Colin Smyth’s amendment 143 is, in effect, trying to destroy grouse shooting. I respect Mr Smyth’s position on field sports, which is that he does not want to see them, but his amendment tries to stop grouse shooting, or that would be its effect.

I find Kate Forbes’s amendments 88 and 89 interesting and I could sign up to them. I recognise that she has taken into account the horrific wildfires that we had in the Highlands recently. There is no doubt in my mind that they were due to a lack of management of fuel loads, and there are organisations that need to understand that. If Kate Forbes does not move her amendments, I will look to see how the proposals can be progressed at stage 3, but I hope that the Government will work with her on them.

I believe that amendments 144 and 145 are surplus to requirements given Kate Forbes’s amendments 88 and 89. I do not think that they are required.

I find amendment 90 interesting. I agree with it, but it presents me with a problem in the sense—

I am disappointed that we did not get into the actual facts about muirburn and that the minister did not engage with any of the specific issues that I discussed. I am also disappointed that he does not acknowledge the importance and skills of those who carry out muirburn, or the reasons for it.

To my mind, introducing another level of licensing will lead to a situation in which we will probably end up with so much analysis that there will be paralysis. The environment will suffer, along with all the species that rely on it and the people who live around the edges of that environment.

I am disappointed. However, I would be prepared, if the minister was willing, to engage with him on these specific amendments to see whether there is a way to recognise the reasons for muirburn and the skills of those who do it and to look at whether the limits can be reviewed at stage 3. I am prepared not to move the amendments, on the understanding that I believe that the minister will engage with me.

Can I check that you are happy that the declaration of interest that I made this morning is extant?

I am not disputing what you are saying, but how many firefighters have done a muirburn course in the past three years?

Today is a first for me, for three reasons. First, I have attended three committee meetings today, which is unusual. Secondly, I have heard the minister speak against his own amendment; I never heard of that before. Thirdly, I will speak at length about a subject in the hope of enabling one of the committee members to attend the meeting to vote against my amendments. Those three things are new to me.

My reason for lodging amendment 181 is to ensure that muirburn licences are for muirburn on moorland. It is unclear to me from the legislation that a muirburn licence does not extend beyond moorland.

My definition of “moorland” is heather, which is in the dictionary definition for “muirburn”, and I want to make sure that it does not extend to gorse, broom and grassland. That is why I have lodged amendment 182, which attempts to define what moorland is not: it is not improved grassland or land suitable for arable cropping beyond permanent grassland. All of those are burnt regularly by people, as I am sure that Alasdair Allan will know, to improve and protect grassland and to stop the invasion of species such as broom and gorse. However, they are burnt not only for those reasons but to remove and control pests such as leatherjackets—cranefly larvae—which can destroy grassland very easily. To my mind, the best option for controlling those, in most cases in which they have damaged and killed off grassland, is to burn that grassland rather than spray it. It is an organic way of controlling such species.

Those are the reasons for my two amendments—to define what muirburn is and where it is—and I am interested in hearing the minister’s comments and in seeing whether he has a more eloquent way of describing it.

I move amendment 181.

I think that you have missed your opportunity, minister. Unless you are going to tell me that you will accept that amendment, I am probably not going to let you in—[Interruption.] Okay—that is even more predictable. That is hugely disappointing, convener—