I absolutely do. With the minister making the very point that we need to protect people who do things legally, I cannot understand why he would not go with the “beyond reasonable doubt” approach. The two seem to be linked, as far as I can see.

I turn to amendment 53 in Colin Smyth’s name. I can understand why Colin Smyth might feel that it is necessary. However, traps such as the mark 6 Fenn trap and the DOC 150 trap——I am sure that he knows them all—have been designed for a specific purpose, which is to kill the animal that they capture as quickly as possible. No one goes out and designs traps to cause unnecessary suffering. Designing a trap, getting it to market and getting people to use it and to have confidence in it would suggest that the trap does exactly what it says on the tin.

I agree with amendment 13, in the name of the minister.

I did not mention my amendment 54 at the outset because it seems reasonable that one would include land managers in consulting on and drawing up the plans. However, it appears that the minister thinks that land managers should not be included, which is why he wants me to drop the amendment.

I press amendment 46.

I will speak to my amendments in the group first. Amendments 46 and 47 are technical amendments to help the Government to understand that it is illegal to kill a wild bird by trapping it, which is why I want to amend the bill to prevent that bit from being in it. People cannot do that, so why is the Government suggesting that they can? I am trying to be helpful. I will be interested in seeing whether the minister thinks that that is the case.

Amendment 48 is on grandfather rights, as they are called—I suppose that we should say “grandparent rights”. It is about not teaching your granny to suck eggs. I was told not to do that when I was younger. If someone has been around for a bit and they understand what they are doing, we should not make them go and do a course to do it. At stage 2, I suggested that there was no requirement to send somebody who is over 40 years old and has been trapping for 10 years on a course to learn how to do that.

Having spent 12 years in the Army and having been taught how to fire a rifle, I found it somewhat odd that I was made to carry out a shooting test to see whether I was capable of shooting a deer. I was allowed to shoot in the Army and I was considered proficient at it, but it seemed that I was not allowed to shoot deer.

My amendment 48 is an attempt to stop that happening. I have taken into account the fact that the Government does not like the suggestion that people should not have to go on a course to do everything nowadays. I have suggested that, when someone reaches the age of 50—not 40—and they have been doing the activity for 10 years and can prove it as part of their employment, they do not need to go off and do a course to learn how to do it. The course would probably be taught by a person of 22 or 23 years old who had been authorised to teach it.

At stage 2, the Government said that the organisations were quite happy with its approach, but some of them were happy because they were told that, if people did not go off and do the courses, they would not be given the right, so it was slightly disingenuous to say that they were happy with it. I note that some of the organisations—such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation—do not support my amendments. That does not surprise me, because they would be running the courses. Why would they cut off an income stream for themselves by allowing people who have experience to carry on doing what they are doing?

Amendment 50 seeks to allow the Government to oversee training courses and make sure that the content is correct. That seems sensible to me.

Amendment 51 seeks to ensure that a trapping licence may not be withheld from anyone on a matter of hearsay. The relevant authority would have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an offence had been committed.

That is what my amendments say. They seem to me to be perfectly reasonable, unless we have an interest in making everyone do a course to do everything and we do not accept that some people know more about what they are doing, having done it for a considerable time, than others.

The other amendments in the group are interesting. I am interested to hear what the members who lodged them have to say, so I will leave it at that and comment on them when I sum up at the end of the debate on the group.

I move amendment 46.

As it appears that we will not have licences, I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 42 not moved.

Amendment 4 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

After section 2

Amendments 5 and 6 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Amendments 43 and 44 not moved.

Section 3—Forfeiture and disposal of glue traps

Amendments 7 to 10 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

After section 3

Amendment 11 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Section 3A—Prohibition of use of snares

I will give way to you, minister.

I remind members of what I just said about my entry in the register of members’ interests. As a farmer, I manage grassland and heathland, which are relevant in this group, as I am seeking to make a split between muirburn and burning of heath, which, in my mind, is totally different.

I remind members that the definition of muirburn is that it is

“intentional and controlled burning of moorland vegetation to encourage new growth (either heather or grassland) for the management of moorland game and wildlife or for improving the grazing potential of the moorland for livestock or deer.”

With amendment 83, I am trying to take heath out of the scope of the bill. Some areas of heath will be burned. Members who have travelled from Edinburgh to Perth will have seen that, about halfway between the two, on the right, there is a big area of broom and gorse that has been burned. It is natural to try to remove that scrub, because it is very difficult to stop it spreading. Even if it is cut, it will come back, so burning is a valuable tool.

With amendment 83, I am trying to split muirburn—meaning burning on heather—from burning heath, which is scrub and which does not necessarily grow on acidic soils. There could be huge damage from overreach in the bill. I have not yet heard a definition that convinces me, as a farmer, that I will not end up not being able to burn areas of grassland. Grassland may be damaged, killed or eaten by leatherjackets, and the only reasonable way to deal with that, rather than spray it, which is pretty invasive and unhelpful, is to burn it and then reseed patches. The bill could make that impossible, and that concerns me slightly.

Amendment 84 acknowledges that muirburn is not only about improving land for game but about improving land for wildlife. Game can produce more wildlife. We all know that eagles predate on hares and peregrines predate on grouse, so increasing stocks of both are good for our predators. Therefore, we should not be frightened about allowing burning.

I support Mr Fairlie’s amendment 18, which is about defining who can burn, but amendment 19 needs to go further to include wildlife in game. What is in amendment 85 seems like common sense. I am unclear about amendment 20, but I will wait to hear about that.

This is a one-off chance to ensure that the bill does not overreach from heather into lowland farm management when it comes to burning.

These amendments are my attempt to move the Government and NatureScot into the 21st century by establishing a register of licences, which, in my mind, should be done online. That should allow people to interrogate the register, and the register should include a name and description of the land to which the licence that has been granted applies. It will, of course, be up to Scottish ministers to determine the form and manner in which the register is to be kept, but it must be accessible online at all times. That seems fairly straightforward and open. My amendment also allows for public inspection.

The other thing that the amendment would do is allow us to move away from what the Government is trying to stick to. Every time somebody wants to do a bit of muirburn, they have to place an advert in the local paper. That costs £500 every time. During Covid, I think that the Government kept many of the local papers going by paying for the adverts. However, when it comes to other areas where that was required, such as under the crofting legislation, which Dr Allan would know all about, crofters objected—and still object—to the adverts having to be placed in local papers because of the expense involved. That is what my amendment would try to avoid.

Amendment 93 is about establishing a register, making it available to the public, allowing the public to interrogate it and keeping costs down for all involved. I am not sure what is not to like about it, but I am sure that there will be something.

I move amendment 93.

Around two weeks ago, my wife asked me what we were going to do for my 63rd birthday. I said, “Well, you can do what you want, but that night I’ll be talking in the Scottish Parliament about something really important—the muirburn bill.” So, here I am talking about it—[Interruption.] I might get one more than one vote.

I want to talk, if I may, about how the parts of Scotland are very different. They are different from one end to the other. I tried to make that point during stage 2, but it was not accepted and Scotland was considered to be all the same. I tried to explain that warmth heads northwards from the south and that when things warm up in the Borders, it can still be cold in the north. In fact, differences can be much more local than that. In the low-lying hills around Tomintoul, it can be positively warm at an altitude of 1,000 feet, but further up into the hills—Ben Avon, for example, at 1,800 feet—it can still be cold, with the ground covered in snow.

That is why having only one season—a bland season that covers the whole of Scotland—is wrong, and why amendments are needed to allow muirburn to be carried out outwith a defined period. Funnily enough, I seem to remember the minister arguing that point at stage 1, as well. He seems to have changed his tune since he became a minister. I am not quite sure why that has happened. No doubt he will enlighten us.

Amendment 97 gives the Scottish Government the chance to extend the period of muirburn to 15 April. That would happen not just on a whim, of course, but would happen with the approval of the experts whom we heard about earlier—NatureScot. That would give a little flexibility, so that if, for example, as happened not many years ago, all the high hills were covered in snow until early April, burning could be done once that snow had lifted. It cannot be guaranteed that snow will have cleared in March.

I have listened to the arguments that have been put forward by organisations. For example, RSPB Scotland says that breeding seasons come earlier. I am pretty sure that not many birds breed in snow. They do not lay their eggs as the snow melts; they wait a bit before they move into the habitat. Extending the season by a mere 15 days, with the approval of NatureScot, seems to be appropriate.

Amendment 98 takes into account the annual variations in weather conditions in particular geographical areas. In some years, I plant by the Moray Firth as early as the middle of February, but in other years that happens as late as the middle of April. It depends on what rain and other weather conditions we have. I cannot make the same decision every year; I know that, eventually, things will dry out and I will get a chance to carry out the operations that are needed. We need to allow keepers to do that. We need that flexibility.

Amendment 99 would ensure that land managers would be included and consulted in the process.

I feel sure that amendment 100 will reach the minister, for the simple reason that it gives scope for NatureScot to suggest to the minister that the season could be extended for up to 20 days. That gives the minister time to consider whether that would be appropriate. As we have heard, NatureScot is the expert, and the Government would only have to “have regard” to its recommendation—it would not have to carry out the recommendation, but if it did not do so it would have to explain why it had not. That seems to be a situation in which everyone would co-operate and work together in the Scottish climate’s difficult conditions, which are different at different levels.

The other day, I spoke to somebody who said that they had seen their first osprey of the year, but not for at least another 20 days—probably, nearer a month—will we see the first ones back with us at home. That is just because of the different climatic conditions.

My amendments seek to bring out that Scotland is not all the same. We are diverse and our country is diverse; therefore, we need flexibility within what will otherwise be a very rigid plan. That is why I look to Parliament to support the amendments in my name.

I move amendment 97.

I really do not mind if you want to throw stones at me, Mr Fairlie, but the reason why I did not come to see you is that I happened to be in Australia for my son’s wedding. If you begrudge my going to my son’s wedding, so be it. I thought that you were bigger than that.

I am disappointed that the minister keeps going back to the figure of 75 per cent of Scotland’s peatland being degraded. This might have been before his time, but I certainly remember when grants were made by the Scottish Office, as it was in those days, to drain peatland with grips. We have learned a lot since then, but it is not all down to how moorland has been managed for wildlife. In fact, we know that wet moorland is probably better than dry moorland for grouse and wildlife, but the then Scottish Office encouraged us to degrade peatland. That is why there is so much degraded peatland.

I do not accept the minister’s points about amendments 97 and 98. I believe that parts of Scotland are very different from one another, which is why I made my point about coming up with a general code.

I accept that the minister will support amendment 99. He asked me to lodge it, and I was happy to do so.

As far as amendment 100 is concerned, I do not believe that there would be anything wrong with giving NatureScot the power to apply to ministers to extend the season. That would show that the powers were not all with the Government but with some of its agencies, which could be approached by land managers on the ground.

I press amendment 97.

In the spirit of co-operation, I will move amendment 100.

Amendment 100 moved—[Edward Mountain].