I am sorry, convener; I know that I should speak through the chair. I said that I understand that the number of days of courses, which amendment 13 deals with, is difficult for the minister and that amendment 15, which is also on the number of days of courses, is difficult. However, I would like to examine with the minister amendment 14, which is to do with reasonable cost, to ensure that the cost of training courses is not too onerous and does not preclude people from taking part in them.

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?

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.

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].