Chamber and committees

In the interests of time, I will go straight to pressing the amendment.

Amendment 91 agreed to.

Amendment 147 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

Does the minister recognise, too, that, as the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service indicated, one of the most essential aims of carrying out muirburn is that it acts as a firebreak for wildfire? Not only is it in the interests of a particular industry, albeit one on which people might have different views; without it, we might have seen homes being burned to the ground last summer.

I am happy not to move amendment 95 when the time comes, in the light of what the minister has outlined.

Stakeholders have shared some concerns about the capacity for other birds to be added without scrutiny. I have had some good conversations with the minister that have recognised those concerns and the need to have balanced legislation that is not overly prescriptive or too broad but can take changing circumstances into account. Although I cannot support Rhoda Grant’s amendment, I wanted to put those stakeholders’ concerns on the record. I know that the minister understands the breadth of that worry.

Rachael Hamilton has already addressed my amendments 101 and 102. The purpose of the amendments needs to be seen in terms of what both achieve, because they are essential to each other. I recognise the push from some quarters, particularly the RSPB, NatureScot and others, to close the muirburn season on 31 March instead of 15 April for reasons relating to the number of moorland birds that might be disturbed, but it is my strong view that that cannot result in an overall reduction in the muirburn season. That is why I have also lodged my amendments to ensure that the start of the muirburn season is 15 September instead of 1 October, which I understand will make a meaningful difference, as per discussions with stakeholders.

There is not much to add beyond that. I encourage members to see those two amendments working in partnership, and I hope that members can support them.

I will speak to amendments 91, 92, 96, 98, 99 and 104. I will first put on record my admiration for individuals such as those in Bright Spark Burning Techniques, who, with the support of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, have taught and trained countless muirburn practitioners. I also pay tribute to those practitioners, who are well trained, experienced and conscientious in the carrying out of muirburn. Over the summer, when I visited a site near Cannich and met gamekeepers, I was struck by the fact that they had actively saved businesses and buildings as a result of their many years of experience in fighting fire with fire and because of their training in muirburn.

My amendments in this group introduce a requirement for anybody who applies for a muirburn licence to have completed an approved training course. Muirburn was discussed extensively in the stage 1 evidence sessions, and two points emerged in particular when it came to conducting muirburn safely. The first was the widespread agreement that training is a must. That has been confirmed by input from various stakeholders indicating that, given the associated risks and the potential for extensive damage if muirburn is not executed properly, it is important that those who engage in muirburn activities have appropriate training. That requirement for training was supported by Deputy Assistant Chief Officer Bruce Farquharson of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

The second point goes right back to where I started: that many muirburn practitioners have already undergone some form of training. They recognise the importance of training, and they are very conscientious practitioners. Training is already happening on a less formalised basis, and voluntary training has been developed by Bright Spark Burning Techniques, NatureScot and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. For that reason, I hope that my amendments make sense and strengthen the bill. I hope that the requirement will not add a significant additional burden on practitioners who are already doing the training, and who have experience and expertise in carrying out muirburn.

I move amendment 91.

For absolute clarity—again, I know that the minister fully understands some of the apprehension—what I am hearing from the minister is that there would be an obligation to consult, because there would be a parliamentary procedure. It would not be a case of ministers just making a decision in a dark room without engaging with stakeholders. That is the key in offering assurance.

This may be a bit of a political question. SAFE has identified a number of areas where it would like progress, such as programmes to join or new provisions and regulations to make. There has been more success in some cases—such as the horizon programme—than in others, where there are outstanding programmes that you want participation in. Where movement has occurred, has that been because of effective consultation with civic society, or has that been pure politics?

That is heartening, because it means that there is the potential for change, so your participation really matters. I do not know whether anyone else wants to respond and say whether they have equal levels of optimism and hope that their participation might result in change.

Good morning. A number of Scottish Government staff have been before the committee, and we have discussed some of the distinct advantages of promoting Scotland with regard to the Scottish brand, produce and talent. That work started under Governments that were in office prior to the SNP and has continued under the SNP. What do you see as being the advantage to the Scottish economy of having a specifically Scottish mission that is ever so slightly distinct from, although such missions are often housed in, UK embassies?