Convener, I am very glad that I gave way to the minister to allow him to agree, albeit partially, with something that I have said.

No. Technically, managing reseeding on grasslands could fall within the bill’s definition of muirburn. I believe that grassland management is truly important and it is really important for crofters to have that ability, but technically it could fall within the bill’s definition of muirburn, so there could be a problem with Dr Allan’s amendment. Although I support it and would like it to be agreed to, I hope that the minister, if my concerns are right, will work with him to ensure that crofters are given the ability to carry out management of grassland, which is so important to their practices.

I find Rhoda Grant’s amendment 149 interesting. I listened to her arguments and I am swayed by the amendment, so I will be interested to see how the committee votes on it.

On the ground that there will be further engagement, I am happy not to press the amendment. I am also happy not to move any of the other amendments. I know that you cannot deal with them en bloc, convener, but I am giving you notice of that now, to save the committee’s time and on the understanding that I can further debate the matter with the minister later.

Amendment 22, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 9 agreed to.

Section 10—Application for muirburn licence

I am pleased to speak to my amendment 20, which seeks to ensure that Scottish Natural Heritage, or NatureScot—whichever name it is trading under on the given date—should

“consult such persons as it considers likely to be interested in or affected by the code of practice, including land managers.”

I think that that is fair, reasonable and inclusive—which the Scottish Government claims to be, so I would be very surprised if the minister were against the amendment.

I am somewhat surprised by amendment 83. I must put it to the person who has moved it, Emma Harper, that she does not know that the use of all medication on land is covered by vets’ prescriptions.

I am sorry—I did not hear that.

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.

I agree with Rachael Hamilton. I think that the minister referred to Alex Hogg, who is the chairman of the SGA. He is a man with huge experience of these matters, and he has supported the courses. Including such people in the consultation on how the courses should be drawn up seems to be logical. That is why amendments 180 and 16 seem entirely relevant to me.

I would be happy to let the minister in to give me some guidance on amendments 13 and 15. If not, I will push them to a vote.