I know that you have the next question, Sarah, but Mark Ruskell has a quick question before we move on from EVs.

We will now move to questions from Mark Ruskell, but I remind members that the clock is ticking.

Before we move back to discussing HGVs, which we had not quite finished, Mark Ruskell has a question on shipping, I think—or has it been answered?

Mark Ruskell has a quick question on aviation.

I have one amendment in the group, and I will speak to it before turning to the others.

I reiterate what has been said already: wildfires are going to become more and more prevalent in Scotland. We have seen evidence of that over the years. The wildfire on the Dava last year was a massive event for those of us who live in the vicinity. I live some 20 miles from it, and I suffered from the smoke for a considerable time. I visited the site soon afterwards to see the extent of the damage, and it was not just the moorland that was burned, but also young trees and plantations. The damage to the environment and the species that live there was immense.

My amendment 161 would allow more muirburn licences to be granted while retaining the oversight that SNH has. As we know, the muirburn licensing scheme is not yet in force, but it is due to be implemented ahead of the 2026-27 season. The licensing scheme is underpinned by different legal thresholds depending on whether the land is peatland or non-peatland. To grant a licence on non-peatland, SNH needs only to be satisfied that it is appropriate. However, on peatland, SNH needs to be satisfied that it is appropriate to grant a licence because muirburn is necessary for the specified purpose and no other method of vegetation control is practical.

I understand that Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 43 is complementary to my amendment—or that mine is complementary to hers; it depends how you want to look at it. However, let us be clear that a great deal of nonsense is talked about muirburn and how it burns deeply into peat. It does not. A proper muirburn allows the fire to pass quite swiftly over the area, removing the dead vegetation and allowing vegetation to regrow. If members do not believe me, I suggest that a quick visit to the Tongue peninsula would be useful. It was burnt in a large fire about 15 years ago, which covered a huge area of the A’ Mhòine site of special scientific interest. The fire was very quick. The trees that were accidentally burnt as part of it did not all need replacing. In fact, the fences that were there did not need replacing, either. Most of the posts stood, although the galvanised coating on some of the fence wire was removed, so that needed to be replaced. Such a fire can be a very quick process. In the past, those fires have been quite incorrectly described as burning down into the peat, but they move swiftly over the ground.

My amendment 161, whether it is complementary to Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 43 or vice versa, would replace the test of necessity with a test of appropriateness. That would be more reasonable, and it would still retain the oversight of SNH. The minister has taken been at great pains this evening to say that SNH is the right organisation to be responsible for licensing. If the test involves requiring muirburn to be appropriate, he should have no fear that SNH would extend beyond its remit, as it would be issuing licences only where it was appropriate to do so.

I totally support Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 42. I have been doing muirburn for 25 years and I still learn something every time I am involved in it. It is a very complex and difficult thing to do properly. When one has somebody who knows what they are doing, one can very easily control fires by backburning, which stops the fire progressing. However, that requires training and the skills of people who have been doing it, which is why I support amendment 42.

Amendment 167, in the name of Tim Eagle, is about equipment. It is absolutely necessary to have the right equipment to fight wildfires. I have talked about that in Parliament before, and I have stressed that the cost of an Argocat with a sprayer, a fogger and the rest of the equipment can sometimes be in excess of £40,000. We need to make sure that that equipment is available and that our firefighters are trained to use it in conjunction with those people who really understand wildfires—that is, the people who work on the land, including gamekeepers.

I will listen to the rest of the arguments, but that is why my amendment 161 is so important, and the Government should get behind it and support it. It might get the Government out of a hole, given the pickle that it has got itself into in relation to muirburn licences.

When it comes to legislative consent motions, I sometimes worry about the risk of being typecast, as I always seem to be fated to be the angry convener delivering a speech about the flaws of the LCM process. However, today, the Parliament will be pleased to know that the angry convener will not be here.

Although the process in this case did not run perfectly, it ran well enough for the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee to come to a reasonably unrushed view on consent. We even had time to go beyond the narrow bounds of the LCM for a more general look at the state of our SAF industry, and I thank the experts whom we heard from as part of that process.

So, what did we find? I have limited time so will give some quick bullet points. First, we found that we need SAF if we are to decarbonise, and we need loads more of it. Secondly, we found that we need prudent governmental intervention to help the sector achieve lift-off. Thirdly, a price stabilisation mechanism such as that in the bill could help, but this is a framework bill, so the detail will absolutely have to be right.

The type of SAF that we need most is so-called power-to-liquid SAF. Biofuels might be the bridge to the next decade, but they are land and resource hungry. The basic building blocks of power-to-fuel SAF are hydrogen and carbon atoms, which never run out.

Scotland is well placed in relation to SAF: we have Grangemouth and other industrial assets that could be repurposed; we have the skills base, especially from the oil and gas industry; and we have a strong record in wind energy generation and the potential for growth in green and blue hydrogen and carbon capture. However, what are the barriers? There is a high price for electricity, which makes it harder for us to compete internationally. What also seemed to be lacking to our witnesses was a sense of the Government having a clear plan for SAF that signals confidence and momentum to potential investors.

Our report called on the Scottish Government to get the mothballed SAF working group back to work to look at quick wins, such as whether Grangemouth could be a base for mixing and redistributing biofuels.

The UK and Scottish Governments have worked out their differences on order-making powers as the bill has proceeded. Our report recommends that the Parliament consents to the relevant provisions of the bill, but we call on the Scottish Government to be on the front foot in using all the powers that it already has and in making the case to Whitehall for a truly UK-wide industrial policy for SAF that makes best use of Scotland’s considerable industrial, natural and human assets.

To ask the Scottish Government what additional resources are being provided to Police Scotland in relation to asylum seekers being housed at Cameron barracks in Inverness. (S6O-05432)

I, too, support Emma Roddick’s amendment, but I am intrigued to know who will issue these tickets for wildfires. Will it be rangers, who are employed by local authorities? If so, the minister must be concerned, as I am, that every local authority, apart from Highland, has reduced the number of rangers that it employs over the past 15 years.

I would like to keep this short. I want to point out some of the contradictions in the minister’s amendment 60 and speak to Douglas Ross’s amendments 149 to 151.

The minister will know that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended, through section 16(1), gives people the right to apply for licences to carry out activities that would not normally be allowed. The power to issue those licences was conferred on Scottish Natural Heritage, or NatureScot, under the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011.

I have first-hand experience of applying for licences. When applying for licences, SNH is clear that, if a licence is being applied to control sawbill ducks, for example, counts must be carried out twice a year, with the information submitted to SNH. That is looked at over the whole catchment to see whether a licence should be issued. That is why amendment 60, which calls for reporting on population numbers, proves that there is an inadequacy. SNH is asking for full detailed counts, but the minister seems to think that it can do whatever it likes by simply producing a report.

Applying for licences is really difficult. I remember an incident in which a lady who cycled down a hill every day to get to work was attacked by a buzzard. First of all, it destroyed her cycling helmet. She was advised to take another route, but there was not one. The final advice from SNH, which refused to give a licence, was for her to cycle down the hill with an umbrella so that she would be protected from the buzzard. I say to the minister that that shows the inadequacy of SNH. If a human had attacked the lady and caused injuries, they would have been removed from that scenario and probably put in prison. However, it seemed fine for a buzzard to do that, because SNH did not want to issue a licence to control it.

I support Douglas Ross’s amendments 149 to 151. I do not really care where the licensing function goes, but all I know is that the licensing authority in NatureScot is dysfunctional.

I will leave it at that.

My problem is not only that the Home Office is not talking to the cabinet secretary; it is not talking to Police Scotland. Recently, I went on a visit to Inverness on a Friday evening and I saw at first hand how pushed officers there were. Three mobile patrols comprising six officers were in place to cover a huge area with a population of 82,000 people. Does the cabinet secretary really believe that Police Scotland has sufficient resources, considering that, to take a recent example, the extra time and cost to house asylum seekers in Crowborough is taxing the resources not only of local forces there but of people across the whole of England?