 Faddiwch i �ранfiornau ll었id mewn d rewardedd manipulatell y mae'r cadw. P Davod dda,etiwr i tneud arnynniad rhai oedden, gan lawer i tua ar rhai iawn dodol ar Com Rasen already, cof eggplantiaig ar negrau ag hawdd mawr, greu ar beefen i taille class yma hefyd. Ffawr, mae ei gweithio i chi gyd, mae chi wedi bod yn ffawr i gyd, mae'n rhaid i gwerthoedd eu bod nhw'n gweithio a'i gweithio ffawr i gael'i gweithio. Yr unrhyw gwaeth ddechrau, wrth gwrs, mae'n rhaid i ddim ffas y gallwn three reasons. Yr hyn mae'n mynd i fyfyrdd alcanaeth o'r uniteilio ar draws trefiadau mewn cyffredin. Yr hyn ymlaen nhw'n gweithio'r cyffredin i'r cynnyddmach hynny yn eu mfawr. 2. Rydw i gobeithio â gwasanaeth yn gyfnodd i'r cyfnodd o'r ddweud o gael gwirionedd confusionig gydol i ddim yn gyfrifio'r gwaith yma i gydag cynnig mewn ffordd gydag yn y gweithio ar gyfer maen nhw. Yn hyn, mae'r dweud bod arwag tynnu'r ddechrau. Metaf, rwyf yn ein bryd, SNF181 mynd i gael'r ddechrau, felly mae'n gilydd hwn i'r cyfnodd ddweud sy'n cael ei gwaith yng nghymell mwylwynau, sy'n wneud gynhlwad yma builders. Maughlen wedi'i menau seronol, mor ffordd mawn. Mae'r dysg Kolleg holdyn yw'r mawn ffordd. It's unclear to me, from the legislation, that a muleburn licence does not extend beyond Mawland. So my definition of Mawland is Heather, which is the definition in the dictionary for Muleburn. But I want to make sure that it doesn't extend to Gores, Brwm and grassland. That is why amendment 182 is there because it attempts to define what Ac sy'n safbwynt i amser ar ôl i fyll, a hefyd yn y plethau bêlion. Mae'r gwleidden nhw ar gyfer o bau ar gyfer o bobl, fel mae'n credu meddwl eto, yn stymlu i'r growsledd iawn a rhoi'r drefnodol a gynnwysgledd iawn i'r cyfnodol o cyfnodol a'r cyfnodol fel Deolcheddon i bromb neb yn parnau. Un siwr angen, hynny dyfu i chi ei dryg ar gyfer yr ydy, mae'r cyfnodol i gael iawn i gael i'r cyfrwod i'ripper i'r trofi iawn, crengfai lawdfa, cynnig beth rydyn ni'n gydagwad ysbryd gyda myth i g yn fu? Rydym yn ym gweinol, myfyd, yn y gallant i'w gydagwad ysbryd, ac yn ddorffydd y gydagwad ysbryd ym mwy. Mae'n dda i'r gwybodaeth ond, a gynnaeth ei ei gallu gweld ei wneud ydyn ni. A'i gwybod ar noi'n glug, fydd o'i r effaith gael mybl mewn i'r amgylchedafol, I would be interested to hear the minister's comments on those and see if he has a better or more eloquent way of describing it. On that note, I move the amendment to my name. Any other members? Amendments 18.1 and 18.2 insert a definition of Moreland into the bill and would have the effect that a Muirburn licence would not be needed to make Muirburn on improved grassland or landsuit will for arable cropping. The rural stewardship scheme Scotland Regulations 2001 provides a definition of both arable land and improved grassland, which clearly excludes Heath or Moreland. Heathland or Heather Moreland are defined instead as rough grazings. These amendments would not apply for the purpose of the provisions of the bill, but it provides background to what Edward Mountain is trying to do. Gillian Martin has lodged amendments 76 and 77 to amend the definition of making Muirburn in the bill to mirror the definition used in the Hill Farmer Act 1946, which is setting fire to or burning of any heath or Muir. That means that should amendments 76 and 77 be accepted, the Edward Mountain's amendments 18.1 and 18.2 would have no practical effect, as heath or Muir would not include improved grassland or landsuitable for arable cropping. What amendments 18.1 and 18.2 would do, however, is create a layer of complexity and possible confusion for Muirburn applicants, because they would be dealing with two different definitions of what Muirburn is and where it can be carried out. Additionally, the definition of Muirburn offered by amendment 18.2 is so wide that it could encompass anything that is not improved grassland or landsuitable for arable cropping. That could include, for example, forestry, roads and private gardens, and clearly such a wide definition would not be practical. For those reasons, I cannot support amendments 18.1 and 18.2 and encourage the committee members to vote against them. I listened carefully to what the minister said, but clearly he understands when I made those amendments and laid those amendments, that it defines what is not mawland, i.e. improved grassland. I am not sure how the minister can think that land suitable for cropping would impinge on people's gardens. What it is trying to do is to define in more detail than the minister has done with her amendments when she laid them. I am happy that the amendments are correct. I am not convinced by the minister's argument. I urge committee members to vote in favour of the amendments to ensure that there is no dubiety, which I believe there is at the moment. Are you pressing the amendment? I am pressing the amendments. Thank you. The question is that amendment 18.1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of the amendment raise your hand now. Those against. Those members wish to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for, 7 against. Amendment 22, in the name of Edward Mountain, is grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Edward Mountain, to move, amendment 22, and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I move amendment 22 and all the other amendments in the group. Now, some people will feel that these are wrecking amendments. They are absolutely not wrecking amendments. The reason is that I am seeking to get the minister to explain why the code is needed. I have been involved in Muleburn since I was 18 years old, and without embarrassing myself, that was 44 years ago. I have done a considerable amount of it. It may have changed in that 44 years, but the reasons for doing it haven't changed. You need to manage vegetation, because if you don't manage vegetation, it becomes rank and of low value to flora and fauna. It certainly shades out the pioneer growth that comes underneath. For me, Muleburn is about creating a mosaic, and there is a careful way of doing that to ensure that we have mixed habitats across Moorlands, where we have pioneer communities, which may be as low as individual grassworks, to Plagio Climax, which is short heather and bluebell heather, to Climax Vegetation, which is the longer rank heather. All of these have a part to play. Pioneer communities are particularly important for hares and species such as that. Plagio Climax is important for ground nesting birds to allow them to move around with small chicks to get insects, and Climax Vegetation is important as well to allow nesting sites for more apex predators such as hen harriers. Therefore, each of these communities provide a niche of habitats for different species, and diversity is the key to this. We have seen controls placed on deer, because they are blamed for damaging their hills. Sometimes I would agree with you that they are, but that is because they are delving into the pioneer and Plagio Climax communities, which provide the best grazing for them. They do not touch the old rank Climax Vegetation, in fact, very few species do. They are there, and what I am trying to get to is to ensure that we have diversity. Muleburn is about burning vegetation. Some people are under the misapprehension, and it is about burning peat. It is certainly not about burning peat. It needs to be understood that it is removing the vegetation to allow new vegetation to come through. It is not random, and it has never been randomly carried out on the hills. It is very carefully managed. I would say to the members of the committee that it is not easy. Anyone who has done it will know that there are huge effects that can make muleburn difficult, whether it is rain, wind, snow or play a part. What is important to understand is that it needs a skilled practitioner to carry out that muleburn, and that they understand what can be safely achieved within a period. Burning a slope can be easily controlled if the wind is in the right direction. If it is in the wrong direction, you will have problems. The plan at all stages is to rotationally burn. I just want to spend a wee moment on this, because I think it is really important. Those people who have been up and looked at heather habitats know that heather regenerates at different speeds. I certainly can take you to bits of hill where heather will regenerate and you will have no idea that burning has taken place five to six years after it has been done. I can take you to other bits of hill where that will still be noticeable 12 to 15 years afterwards. The fallacy of this bill in my mind is the fact that we are talking about burning on peat depth. If you go up into the high montane where you shouldn't be burning, there is very shallow peat depth where there is a schist underneath it, which means that the peat is shallow and to burn it would be dangerous. It is bad for that montane. In some ways, burning where there is a more equal peat depth is far more sustainable. I don't like in the fact that in the bill it talks about narrowing it down to peat depth. I have no idea in my mind how you can look at an entire burn area where you are going up and maybe doing 100 metres or 200 metres and working out the peat depth across that whole 100 to 200 metres to work out whether you can burn it. I think that it is dangerous. What I am wanting to do with these amendments is to understand where the minister is coming from, where the minister believes the current mule burn code is wrong, because the mule burn code actually, if implemented in my mind, is correct. Of course, I would say that because I worked on the mule burn code when it was first brought out, but I am confident that if you read through all of the mule burn code guidance, which is here and a very straightforward document, you would feel confident that mule burn, if it was carried out in line with that guidance, there would be nothing wrong with it. My plea is for the minister to explain to me why licencing is required when we have a decent code and what needs to happen is not to introduce licences but to enforce the code that we have and to rely and use the skill and experience of those people that are on the hill and understand the hills that they have worked on perhaps all their lives, their fathers perhaps before them and their grandfathers before that and understand that they have a real argument to bring to the table about why the management of mule burn is best done under the code and not under a licences system. I am interested to hear what the minister says to the arguments that I have raised and why he thinks that a licences is more appropriate than a properly enforced code. There are a couple of points that I would like to make. We will be debating the mule burn code and not everyone, as Mr Mountain says, actually carries it out properly in the way that the mule burn code actually dictates. I am disappointed that Mr Mountain has lodged the amendments to remove the whole of part 2 of the bill. Those amendments have passed would mean that the existing legislation would remain in place. That would feel like a missed opportunity to improve the regime around an important rural activity, which nonetheless can impact adversely on peatland, on habitats and on wildlife if not undertaken appropriately and safely. Some might disagree, however, that there is broad agreement, including from stakeholders and the public, that mule burn should be subject to greater oversight and that the legislation currently governing it, some of which dates back to 1946, needs to be updated. The public consultation showed that the majority of respondents supported the proposals with 68% agreeing that licences should be required to undertake mule burn, regardless of the time of year it has taken. The Scottish Government committed to implementing the recommendations of the verity review, including those relating to mule burn, and that is what part 2 of this bill does. The verity review recognised the benefits that mule burn can bring, but also highlighted that there was strong evidence that mule burn can have negative impacts, including on biodiversity and soil. It concluded that mule burn should be subject to greater regulation and oversight and that this should apply to all mule burn, not just mule burn undertaken on grous mures. It is recommended that mule burn should be unlawful unless carried out under licence, and that is what part 2 of the bill seeks to introduce. I therefore cannot nor would wish to support any of the amendments in this group, and I would ask Mr Mountain not to press them, and if he does, I would encourage the committee members, most of whom are elected in a manifesto, commitment to implement the verity review recommendations to please what against them. Edward Mountain to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 22. I am disappointed that we did not get into the actual facts about mule burn. In fact, I am disappointed that the minister did not engage on any of the specific issues that I discussed. I am also disappointed that he does not acknowledge, convener, the importance and the skill sets that people who carry out mule burn do it for and the reasons for it, and to introduce another level of licensing in my mind will lead to a situation where we will probably end up with so much analysis that there will be paralysis on the ground, and it will be the environment that suffers, not only the environment, but all the species that rely on that environment, and the people who live round the edges of those environments who could be under increased risk. I am disappointed. However, convener, I would be prepared if the minister is willing to engage with him on these specific amendments to look at if there is a way where we can recognise more of the skills and more of the reasons for mule burn and whether the actual limits that are put in there can be reviewed maybe at stage 3. I am prepared not to move the amendments and on the understanding, I believe, that the minister will engage with me. I can say to Edward Mountain that we will be debating the where and why forms of mule burn later on in the bill, so I would still ask you not to press. I will not be moving on the basis that there will be further engagement. I am happy to not to move to this amendment. Convener, I know that you cannot do this, but when it comes to the other amendments, I am happy not to move any of them. I know that you cannot move them in block, but I am giving you notice of that at this stage to try and save on the committee's time and the chance to further debate them with the minister later. You are withdrawing amendment 22. I am withdrawing amendment 22, yes, convener. The question is that section 9 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 143 in the name of Colin Smyth, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Colin Smyth to move amendment 143 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. Amendment 143 draws attention to another elephant in the room in this debate. As I explained with amendment 113, the explanatory notes to the bill say that the Government wants to, quote, "...ensure that the management of gross mures and related activities are undertaken in an environmentally sustainable and welfare conscious manner." This amendment complements environmental goals of the bill and speaks to the reasons a mureburn licence should be given by NatureScot. While it may be accepted that mureburn can be one of the tools in the box for land managers, it is environmentally and ethically indefensible for mureburn licences to be given for the sole purpose of maintaining and increasing mureburn game purely to then be shot. There will be some who oppose this amendment because they support maximising the level of killing, but that is not the view of the public. Three quarters of Scots who are opposed to mureburn for this purpose solely so gross numbers can be maintained or increased to then be killed for sport. This amendment will reduce unnecessary mureburn while leaving the flexibility for it to continue to be used when that is necessary. Put simply, if land managers want to obtain a licence to mureburn for genuine conservation reasons, the amendment does not in any way block that happening. Thank you, Mr Smith. I call Kate Forbes to speak to amendment 88 of other amendments in this group. Thank you, convener. Amendment 88 and amendment 89 are, in my view, fairly minor technical amendments and certainly not controversial. They ensure that there is consistency across licensible purposes for peatland and non-peatland. Amendment 88 ensures that mureburn, which of course does not distinguish between habitats, can be licenced on peatland and non-peatland where we want to prevent damage to habitats caused by wildfire. Amendment 89 does the same thing in terms of correcting inconsistencies across licensible purposes for peatland and non-peatland, but in this case it is a licensible purpose where an individual wants to conserve, restore, enhance or manage the natural environment. In short, those amendments allow for the management of habitats and protection of the natural environment across peatland and non-peatland as a licensible requirement when it comes to mureburn. I have spoken to the minister about those amendments. I understand and respect that the Government may wish to bring back those amendments at stage 3. I hope that the minister can give some assurance on that to give effect to the intention of those two amendments at stage 3, and that will mean that I will not press it today as a result of that assurance. Thank you. Ms Forbes and I call on Rhoda Grant to speak to amendment 144 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. Can I speak to my amendments 144, 145 and 146? 146 is in a similar vein to Cape Forbes amendment 88, and mine also covers mureburn in both peatland and non-peatland. The wildfire last year in Canach highlights the need to manage fuel load on peat as well as in other areas. It seems to me wrong that we spend money on restoring peatland only to see these efforts ruined by an intensely burning wildfire. Therefore, it is sometimes the case that mureburn is the most effective way to manage the fuel load and should be used as such. Perhaps there should be a duty on land managers to manage fuel load in order to mitigate the harm caused by wildfire. The problem is that the science is not yet conclusive in this area and it makes it challenging to legislate. We need to ensure that what we put down in legislation can adapt to fit future scientific knowledge. That said, it seems clear that leaving large fuel load on land is dangerous. Leaving it on degraded peat is also disastrous, and we have heard and saw evidence to show that mureburn caused little harm on well-maintained peatland. My amendments acknowledge the role to be played by mureburn in peat restoration and protection. My amendment 49 ensures that any regulations that modify the lists of purposes for mureburn are subject to fuller consultation and scrutiny by the committee. I hope that that would give members some confidence in making sure that any changes are fully scrutinised and that they will be in line with science at that time. Thank you. I now call Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 23 and other amendments in the group. Thank you convener. Amendment 23 is simple that it recognises that mureburn is being carried out not only for mawl and game but also for wildlife. I think that most people will accept that mureburn has beneficial effects to ground nesting birds such as grass, snipe and other species that nest and require short heather and short heather for moving their chicks around. However, it is also benefits for other species such as hares, black cock, peregrin and hen harriers. In fact, everything benefits from mureburn in my opinion, which is why I wanted to add the fact that it is for managing habitats for mawl and game or wildlife, two reasons why it should be allowed. As far as the other amendments are in consame, I believe that amendment 143 from Colin Smyth is effectively trying to destroy. I respect Mr Smyth's position on field sports that he does not want to see them, but his amendment is to try to stop grass shearing or that will be the amendment of it. I looked at the amendments 88 and 89. I think that it is from Kate Forbes. I find them interesting amendments and ones that I could sign up with. I recognise that Kate Forbes has taken into account the horrific wildfires that we had in the Highlands recently, which was no doubt in my mind for a lack of management and a lack of management of fuel loads. There are organisations that need to understand that. Therefore, if she does not push the amendments, I will look at how those amendments progress at stage 3. However, I hope that the Government will work with I believe the amendments 144 and 145 are surplus. The amendments 88 and 89 that Kate Forbes has suggested, so I do not think they are required. As far as amendment 90 is concerned, I find this an interesting one. I find it interesting because I agree it, but it presents me with some problems in the cent. No, it is managing re-seeds in grassland because technically that could form within the definition of mure as put by the bill. What I believe that grassland management is truly important and I think it is really important for crofters to have that ability, but technically it could fall within the definition of the bill of mure burn and therefore would mean that there would be problems with this amendment. Whilst I am supportive of Dr Allen's amendment and would like to see it get through, 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 the management of grassland, which is so important to their practices. The final comment that I would make is Rhoda Grant's amendment 149. I find this interesting and I have listened to her arguments and I am swayed by it, so I will be interested to see how the committee votes on it. That is my position. Thank you, Mr Mountain. Colin Allister Allen to speak to amendment 90 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. My amendment 90 adds an allowance specific to crofters to apply for a mure burn licence for the purpose of re-seeding to provide or to improve grazing on peatland. The bill currently only allows licences for mure burn on peatland for the purposes of restoring the natural environment, preventing wildfire or for research. However, during stage 1, crofting stakeholders raised concerns about the lack of provision within the bill for mure burn on crofting peatland for the purposes of re-seeding, which they highlight is a traditional and effective practice in which, when carried out properly, it avoids damage to the peat itself. Controlled mure burn over small areas of land, such as on crofts or on common grazings, is a long-established practice in crofting areas across the highlands and islands. Although there are alternative re-seeding methods that could be attempted on that kind of terrain, their potential efficacy is viewed, I believe, as highly questionable. I am interested, and it is for those reasons why I think that it is important. Will the member also accept that there could be benefits as well by carrying out mure burn on grassland to remove such problems that cattle face and crofters face with tick, and that could help to limit the spread of Lyme's disease, which is a serious problem across the highlands? Certainly, while it is not within the scope of my amendment, I would certainly acknowledge that the need to control the spread of Lyme's disease, which has been an issue in parts of my constituency. We should, of course, be open to looking at all measures around that. My amendment, however, would focus on ensuring that crofters continue where they are appropriate to carry out mure burn on their crofts or shared common grazings for purposes of re-seeding or to improve or to provide grazing as they have done for generations. I hope that whatever the Government's reaction to that, the minister might be willing to work with me on that issue in the future. I was minded to vote against your amendment, but you are persuading me that it is a very sensible amendment. I initially interpreted it as that it would not be narrowing the scope where peatland can be burned, but that is not the case, is it? You are saying that it is widening the scope. Yes, unless I badly miswritten it, that is my intention. My intention is to provide another reason that crofters could use to employ mure burn. Jamie Halcro Johnston Thank you very much, convener. Again, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak and raise some of the concerns of my colleague Stephen Kerr, who cannot be here today. I just wanted to briefly talk to amendment 143 in the name of Colin Smyth. This is a deliberate and targeted attempt to compromise rural businesses reliant on-ground shooting as part of their income stream. Given the body of evidence that demonstrates the benefits of mure burn carried out by grouse moor managers for a diversity of moorland wildlife, it seems counter intuitive to remove the primary motivation for undertaking the activity in the first place. Moreover, moorland game includes species such as black grouse, a red-listed species of conservation concern whose populations are now largely confined to moorland managed for grouse shooting, in part because of the mure burn undertaken to benefit moorland game on these land holdings. I simply cannot support amendment 143. As Colin Smyth well knows, if mure burn were not allowed in moor's or heath where there is game, then it would be impossible to support moorland game or the industry that is enabled by it. That may well be Colin Smyth's intention but it is definitely not the Scottish Government's. The purpose of this bill is to allow for the undertaking of mure burn in the right and controlled circumstances for a range of purposes, including to create and maintain habitats for red grouse or other moorland game but also help to protect other ground nesters, as we have already heard. I would encourage members to vote against amendment 143. Does the minister recognise too that one of the most essential aims as indicated by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is that it does act as a fire break when it comes to wildfire? Not only is it in the interest of a particular industry, which people may have different views on, but without it we may have seen homes burn to the ground this summer. Yes, I agree and I would also highlight at this point the absolute invaluable work that is done by the gamekeepers and associated industry to make sure that these wildfires are brought under control. I understand why Kate Forbes has laid amendment 88. Unlike her, I want to make sure that the bill provisions are as clear as possible in terms of the purposes for which mure burn will be allowed in the future. I agree that, when undertaking appropriately with caution and planning, mure burn can be a tool to prevent and reduce the risk of wildfire. However, I do not consider this amendment to be necessary, as making mure burn for the purpose of preventing or reducing the risk of wildfire causes damage to habitats, causing damage to habitats, is covered by the existing purposes in the bill of managing the habitats of wildlife and managing the natural environment. However, I would ask Kate Forbes not to press this amendment to allow me to consider it further ahead of stage 3 to determine if we can make it clearer on the face of the bill. Similarly, I do not think that amendments 144, 145 and 146 from Rhoda Grant are necessary. The bill already includes the purposes of making mure burn to prevent or reduce the risk of wildfire in sections 10, 2A and B. That would include managing fuel loads to serve that purpose. This is detail that could and indeed should be set out in the mure burn code. However, there is a risk that the changes to the wording proposed by these amendments may restrict the wildfire management purposes to only managing fuel loads, and if there is another use of mure burn to prevent or reduce the risk of wildfire, it would no longer meet that licensible purpose. It is not immediately clear what these amendments offer over what is already in the bill, and I would ask that these amendments not be pressed. Amendment 23, from Edward Mountain, to allow mure burn to be undertaken in peatland to manage habitats for game birds and other wildlife, does not take into account the value of Scotland's peatland. The purposes currently in the bill for undertaking mure burn on peatland are limited in recognition of the risk of serious and significant carbon emissions when burning. It either damages the peat or interferes with the natural carbon sequestration process that occurs on functioning peatlands. I may have misunderstood that all I have introduced that in my amendment 23, I believe to the bill, is the fact that it is for more than game or wildlife. I am just saying that wildlife is important, not just more than game. I find it odd that you are in a position where you cannot accept that. The purposes of the bill for undertaking mure burn in peatland are limited in recognition of the risk of serious and significant carbon emissions when burning either damages the peat or interferes with the natural carbon sequestration process that occurs on functioning peatlands. It is for that reason that the bill is attempting to reach a balanced position between limiting the damage to peatlands that arises from mure burn but also limiting the damage to peatlands that arises from wildfire. That means that the process of undertaking any mure burn on peatland needs to be done in a more thoughtful and only to be undertaken in limited circumstances. I would encourage you either to not press it or to member or for members to vote against it. Amendment 89 in the name of Kate Forbes again adds the terms conserving, enhancing or managing the natural environment for the purposes for mure burn on peatland. The current provision allows just for restoring the natural environment. As I explained to Edward Mountain, the provisions for mure burn on peatland are about reaching a balanced position. The increased purposes for undertaking mure burn proposed by amendment 89 are broader in terms than just restoring and therefore will open the scope up when mure burn can take place on peatland. For example, managing the environment is so wide that it would allow mure burn on peatland for any purpose whatsoever without any restriction. So I think we can agree that that wouldn't be appropriate and it would put peatlands at an unnecessary risk. It would not align with our commitments to address climate change. However, I appreciate where Kate Forbes has come from. As with amendment 88, if Kate Forbes is happy not to press this amendment, I undertake to consider this further ahead of stage 3 to see if we can address some of the issues that she has outlined today. I take what the minister says in very good faith. If the minister can assure me that there will be an amendment of some kind at stage 3 that gives effect to those two amendments, I will not press. I will give the absolute commitment that we can meet and we can talk about it and see what we can bring back at stage 3. Amendment 1994, I appreciate the tension of amendments 1994 and I'm sympathetic to ensuring that this bill not only works for grousmure managers but also crofters and farmers while also protecting our valuable peatlands. We know that crofting delivers real benefits, sustainable agricultural activity, supporting the rural economy, enhancing wildlife and the natural environment, and supporting people to stay and live and work in our rural and island communities. The Scottish Government supports crofting in its committee enabling more people to live in or near a croft and to work their land. The intention of this bill is not to interfere with that. There is the potential that the effect of this amendment is already covered by the purposes from your bun on peatland already contained within the bill. I therefore ask Alasdair Allan not to press his amendment. Likewise, I wonder if you would go a little further than that and offer to work with me ahead of stage 3. I will give that commitment that yes, we can work with you before the end of stage 3. Amendment 149, I think that's unnecessary. As I previously mentioned, there are established procedures in place for laying affirmative statutory Scottish statutory instruments, which include delaying of the Scottish statutory instruments in draft. We have also included consultation requirements, therefore the special provision diminishes the efficiency within which businesses, as usual legislation, may be taken forward. It could also substantially delay the making of regulations needed to introduce urgent further protections for peatlands, mureburn or similar. Therefore, I encourage the committee to vote against amendment 149 on this basis. Can I get some assurance, then, that any changes are going on? I could ask, like my colleagues, and hope that the minister was willing to meet me before stage 3 to discuss this further, and I sincerely hope that he will. Perhaps he could put on the record some assurances that any changes will be widely consulted on with all stakeholders and that they will have an input to any changes that might take place. I'll give you the commitment that we can meet before stage 3 and to talk about it, but I'll ask you not to press it at this stage. Colin Smyth, to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 143. Thank you, convener. The equivalent of over 200,000 football pitches are subject to mureburn, purely to maintain and increase grills, and about 40 per cent of it is taking place on deep peat, as it is currently defined at 50 centimetres depth. Ending unnecessary mureburn to maintain and increase grills won't stop anyone shooting grills, but it will mean that our vital peatlands will be afforded far greater protection while mureburn can still continue for the other legitimate reasons in this bill. I certainly will, yes. Will the member accept, as we have seen over the summer, that the most destructive thing for peatland is wildfires that are out of control? Where mureburn can be restricted and managed, it so often ensures that peatland is saved on a much broader basis than if it were to be out of control because of fuel load increasing? I take on board the point that Kate Forbes makes, and we, having been a member of the county of the government, gave assurances during evidence that mureburn can still be an emergency tool to respond to wildfires without a licence, and if a land manager wants to obtain a licence for mureburn for genuine conservation reasons, this amendment does not affect that in any way. Amendment 143 backs what I believe we all agree that the bill should set out to achieve, which is to ensure that the management of gross mures and related activities are undertaken in an environmentally sustainable and welfare conscious way. I will finish it up, but I will take an intervention yet. I just like to note, because I am trying to understand why you have tabled amendment 143. Has the member ever been to see any black grass conservation projects on moorland, which are obviously the practice of mureburn is actually conserving wildlife and red-listed species? If a land manager wishes a licence for conservation reasons, the amendment does not impact on that whatsoever. I think that that is an important point that needs to be made. I know that I am not surprised that the Conservatives do not agree with the amendment. They want to maximise the level of killer. I appreciate that, but I am disappointed that the Greens and SNP seem to share that position. Despite the fact that I know that the minister has no... That Colin Smyth needs to clarify his statement about my party wanting to maximise kill. It does not mean anything. I do not understand what it means. It is actually disrespectful. I can tell him categorically that I support rural economies and country sports pursuits. It is important that he acknowledges that and does not explain it as maximising kill. I have no idea what that means, and it is disrespectful. Thank you, Ms Hamilton. It is not a point of order, but I can take the opportunity to remind members that standing orders require members to treat each other with respect. We may bear that in mind in our contributions. I am quite happy to address that point in question. We know from the amendment and previous amendments that we should not be trapping purely to minimise one species in order to maximise another species purely for the purpose of killing that other species. That is that circle of destruction that has been debated time and time again. That is the point that is being made. I am not surprised that the Conservatives do not agree with that amendment, but I am disappointed that the Greens seem to share that position. I am also aware that the minister has probably got no intention whatsoever of meeting with me to discuss bringing this amendment back at stage 3, but I will not press amendment 143 at this stage. I think that the Government's position on supporting mureburn purely to maintain and increase girls to be shot for sport is very much now on record, convener. The members indicate that they wish to withdraw that amendment. Does any member object? No. I call amendment 88 to the name of Kate Forbes. It is already debated with amendment 143. Kate Forbes, do you want to move or not to move? I do not move. The member has requested that we press that. The question is that amendment 88 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of the amendment raise your hands now. Those against. Those members abstain. The result of the vote is two for five against two abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 144 in the name of Rhoda Grant. It is already debated with amendment 143. Rhoda Grant, do you want to move or not to move? I do not move. Thank you. I call amendment 23 in the name of Edward Mountain. It is already debated with amendment 143. Edward Mountain, do you want to move or not to move? Move. So the question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in favour of the amendment raise your hand now. Those against. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is three for six against. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 89 in the name of Kate Forbes. It is already debated with amendment 143. Kate Forbes, do you want to move or not to move? Not moved, thank you. The motion has been pressed. The question is therefore that amendment 89 be agreed. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support, raise your hands now. Those against. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two for five against. Two abstentions. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 145 in the name of Rhoda Grant. I beg a pardon. I have missed one. Sorry. I am calling amendment 90 in the name of Alasdair Allan. Already debated with amendment 143. Alasdair Allan, to move or not move. On the basis of the offer to work with me ahead of stage 3, I will not be pressing this. Can I press it now? The question is that amendment 90 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support of the amendment raise your hand now. Those opposed. Those abstaining. And the result of the vote is two for five against. Two abstentions. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 145 in the name of Rhoda Grant. Already debated with amendment 143. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 146 in the name of Rhoda Grant. Already debated with amendment 143. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 183 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. Can I point out that if amendment 184 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 101, 102 or 167. At that, if amendment 102 is agreed, I cannot call amendment 167 as a pre-exemption. Rachel Hamilton, to move amendment 183 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and I move amendment 183 in my name. I'm pleased to be given the opportunity to speak to these amendments in this very important group. Convener, it's worth stating at the outset that uncertainty over amendments in this group have prompted a significant amount of concern and anguish among stakeholders and myrobran practitioners. To that end, I'm keen to ensure that the various concerns that have been raised with me are properly articulated and considered. I'd asked that members bear with me while I make some technical and scientific observations in relation to the amendments lodged. I want to start by addressing amendments 101 and 102 in the name of my colleague Kate Forbes, which would have the effect of starting and ending the myrobran season two weeks earlier than the status quo. I understand that those amendments are being driven by the perceived impact of myrobran on ground nesting birds. Convener, I have no issue with opening the myrobran season on 15 September, rather than 1 October. It seems logical to provide practitioners with additional capacity to make myrobran in September, notwithstanding the fact that the quality of burning will not be as good as it is towards the end of the season. If we are to meaningfully reduce fuel load and enhance habitats of biodiversity, having the capacity to burn for an additional two weeks in September could be advantageous. I therefore have no difficulty in supporting amendment 101. What I have a slight issue with, convener, is the scientific evidence that supports the amendment, which would have the effect of closing the season on 31 March, instead of 15 April. I have taken the time to consider in detail the available scientific evidence about the impact of myrobran on ground nesting birds. I have to say that I am completely unconvinced by the arguments in favour of amendment 102. The British Ornitholody Trust published an incredibly detailed research report in 2021, which considered in detail the nesting dates of moorland birds of reference to myrobran. It noted that the overlap for most species between burning season and laying dates remains small and that the overall impact of myrobran can be characterised as low, even among early breeders. Indeed, it goes on to note that those birds do breed early in favour of habit, which simply would never be targeted for burning. In the case of the golden eagle and peregrine falcon, their preference is crags, which they cannot burn, and in the case of lapwing and golden plover, their preference is short vegetation, which they would be extremely hard pressed to burn. The only species with which I can see that Kate Forbes can credibly say that is impacted by myrobran is the stone chat, and that is a small bird that can be described as a habitat generalist. In light of the fact that it nests successfully in lowland areas as well as upland, it is for this reason that the authors of the research that I am stating noted that no more than 0.3 to 0.5% of nests are likely to be destroyed by burning, which is not statistically significant in the grand scheme of things. I think that we can say that the current myrobran season is not posing a threat to ground nesting birds. Indeed, on the contrary, we know that many species benefit significantly from the habitats created by myrobran as has already been articulated by members this evening. The other concern that has been put to me is that more than birds are nesting earlier, and something that I also undertook to explore. Helpfully, that same BTO research report provides useful commentary on this issue, too. On the whole, it suggests that the breeding dates are, and I quote again, typically advancing by one to two days per decade. Given the in-depth analysis courtesy of that report, I am not sure that we can credibly say that just three years later, more than birds are now breeding significantly earlier, except that the myrobran season might be something that we need to look at in the future. However, I do not believe that we have reached that point where action is required. We must also consider the disbenefits of curtailing the season on 31 March. Providers of myrobran training have said that curtailing the season will have enduring impacts on the provision of myrobran training. That is an interesting point, and something only those who practice myrobran could probably comment on. It is something that is set to become a statutory requirement under this bill, so it is an important point. We know that myrobran training requires an assessment of practical skills that involves an assessed myrobran. Myrobran trainers have said that some 90 per cent of those assessments take place between 15 March and 15 April, because this is the time when the conditions are the most favourable for burning. They have also told me that it is often not feasible to burn at any other time of year due to the ground, the vegetation and the atmospheric conditions. Amendment 102 would have the effect of imposing a bottleneck on the provision of myrobran training. I am not sure whether that is something that the minister had considered. There are around 100 people who have been trained voluntarily, but there will be hundreds more that will shortly require the qualification in order to burn. Closing the season on 31 March would put the entire training aspiration from the Scottish Government at risk. To that end, convener, I ask all members to vote against amendment 102 on the basis that it lacks evidential grounding. It is likely to be accompanied by unintended consequences that could potentially be damaging. It is worth noting, convener, that during the stage 1 debate, the minister himself intervened on Ariane Burgess when she suggested that the myrobran season should be curtailed early, citing the very research from the BTO, which I have just spoken about at length earlier. I hope that the minister will be sympathetic to those arguments considering his comments in the chamber. It also goes without saying that the arguments that I have outlined in relation to amendment 102 also apply to the amendment in the name of Ariane Burgess, number 167, which would see the myrobran season ending even earlier than 15 March. I find it impractical and quite astonishing that Ariane Burgess would seek to curtail the activity without a shred of supporting scientific evidence, although we may hear that shortly, especially given the extent to which her region has been hit by catastrophic wildfires in recent years. Myrobran has an integral role in reducing wildfire risk and neutralising wildfire when it does occur, as we have already heard this evening. Ariane Burgess's amendment would significantly detract from that, which is not going to be in the interests of those people who were affected by those particular wildfires in that region. Thank you for bearing with me, convener, but I now would like to speak to the amendments in my name, amendments 183 and 184, as well as 25, 26, 39 and 40, in the name of my colleague Edward Mountain. Those amendments are designed to give practitioners some mechanism to burn beyond 31 March, if the minister is determined to continue on this damaging course to curtail the closed season, to close the season early. My amendments provide the ability to burn in an extended myrobran season, which is the period between 1 and 30 April for limited purposes only, to include the provision for training. That would effectively deal with the issues surrounding training, as I referred to earlier. Edward Mountain's amendments would also provide the ability to burn beyond the closed season under licence for a narrow range of purposes. The point here, convener, is that there are very good reasons that practitioners should be able to continue burning into the month of April. I have highlighted in this contribution the immediate unintended consequences of not being able to burn in April, but I should also say that there would be a reduction in the amount of myrobran that is made annually if the decision follows through. I contend that that is not in the public interest to reduce myrobran in this way, giving the demonstrable benefits that it provides for biodiversity livestock game birds and wildfire mitigation and habitat conservation. There is also emerging evidence from a long term study in Northern England that myrobran is having huge benefits for a range of key peatland characteristics, including water retention, methane, reduction and nutrient provision. I am just about to conclude. For this reason, I very much hope that the minister will support Edward Mountain's and my own efforts to provide practitioners with the means to burn in April if he decides to support amendment 102 in the name of Kate Forbes. Finally, I would like to add that I support amendment 168 in the name of my colleague Rhoda Grant, which will provide sufficient and effective scrutiny of any future changes to the myrobran season, which may be made by regulation. I will conclude by moving my amendments in my name. Thank you, Ms Halden. I call on Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 25 and other amendments in this group. Thank you very much, convener, and can I start off by speaking in this section just by saying that we all recognise in this room that every part of Scotland is different. I am sure that convener will argue with Colin Smyth that the borders are the place to be, and I and Kate Forbes may argue that the highlands are the place to be, but we are very different across all of Scotland, and there is somewhere in the middle that the Minister may think is the best place to be. Well, I think a very point that I'm making here, and the Western Isles, of course, is a place to be as well, but they're all completely different. That's the point I'm trying to make, and they have completely different seasons, so whether maybe snow up in the Cairngorms right the way through into April, there may not be snow in the borders in March, and that is the point of my amendments is to try and ensure that we recognise the geographical differences that face each part of Scotland, and it is absolutely wrong to say that all ground nesting birds nest at the same time. Now, I heard that argument during the evidence session that nesting periods have come forward. They might have come forward in the more temperate bits of Scotland, but in the more highland and rugged bits nesting seasons have not really come forward. Keepers know this, and muleburn practitioners know this, and they understand that, and they understand the reason for making sure that their muleburn is carried out at a time that is appropriate. In my mind, trying to reduce the season to say all of Scotland is the same is such a fallacy, it's such a mistake, and it doesn't recognise these, the different challenges that are placed in different parts of Scotland. That's why I've produced these amendments, and to try and get the views that we have a different season, which is considered on the geographical location. One could argue that there is a different season, as was done under the Hill Farming Act 1946, that you could carry on burning at higher altitudes at a later date, because you probably wouldn't get there at an earlier date. That's why there is sense in this, but just to say an arbitrary figure, Scotland is all the same. The Western Isles are the same as the Highlands. The borders are the same as Perthshire. It's just not true, and for those reasons alone, I've put my amendments, and I would ask the Minister and other members of the committee to consider carefully why those amendments are there and why we need to do it. I also believe that we should have cognizance when we're talking about the muleburn season, is that the people who are carrying out the burning are doing it for good reasons, and that they are not out there to burn birds that are sitting on nests. They just don't do that, and if there's any risk of it, they don't do it. Have some trust in them, is what I'm asking, and let the geographical area dictate the burning season, not a centralised policy based on a centralised Government agency. I call on Kate Forbes to speak to amendment 101 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. Rachel Hamilton has already addressed my two amendments 101 and 102. The purpose of those amendments needs to be seen in terms of what both achieve, because they are both essential to each other. I recognise the push from some quarters, particularly RSPB, NatureScot and others, to close the muleburn season on 31 March instead of 15 April, for reasons to do with the number of muleburn birds that might be disturbed. It's my strong view that that can't result in an overall reduction in the muleburn season, which is why I have also brought forward the amendment to ensure that the start of the muleburn season is 15 September instead of 1 October, which I understand will make a meaningful difference as per discussions with stakeholders. There's not much more to add beyond that. I would encourage members to see those two amendments working in partnership with each other, and I hope that members can support them. Thank you. I call on Ariane Burgess to speak to amendment 167 and other amendments in the group. Thanks, convener. My amendment 167 seeks to set the close of the muleburn season as 15 March. As you've already heard, there are various dates being suggested this evening, and this demonstrates the degree of change that we are seeing in the seasons and their effects on wildlife. My amendment would set an earlier end to muleburn season as proposed in the bill, and this is to avoid the season overlapping with the breeding seasons of several bird species, which routinely nest on moorland. I'm going to continue my point, because I've just clicked my thoughts here. So it's interesting to note that the BTO data has already been used, and I'm going to reference it, but that's an interesting piece that highlights that we can use data in different ways, and I think that my approach here is around a precautionary approach. Thank you and thank the member for giving way. I'm just asking for information from the data that she's got and the information that she's gathered. What moorland bird, grand nesting bird, is nesting on 15 March? Well, I have a long list of birds here. 15 March in the Highlands? Well, across the whole of Scotland, I think that's what we're looking at here. So what I have here is a report from NatureScot, and also the BTO study that was already referenced states that nesting dates of moorland birds in the English Welsh and Scotland uplands found that in 10 per cent of golden plover nests, 15 per cent of lapwin nests, 31 per cent of peregrin nests, eggs had already been laid by the 31st of March and by the 15th of April. This has increased to 45 per cent, 42 per cent and 82 per cent respectively. Additionally, the study found that 11 per cent of hennau harriers, 27 per cent of snipe and 41 per cent of stone chats, had laid by this latter date. I think that my concern is that we are seeing climate change and the nature emergency just leading to breeding seasons becoming earlier, and what I'm seeking to do with this amendment is to future proof it. Would the member aggregate the data that she has just quoted to the Scottish-specific area rather than the whole of the UK to understand the quote that she just gave there around the lapwin golden plover? The data that I've got refers to moorland birds in English Welsh and the Scottish uplands. Okay, so my quotes, I'm just trying to compare like for like. Well that's right, isn't it? I mean it is interesting, we all refer. I mean I've got also information from NatureScot about breeding season and dates here and I think that is an interesting thing that we can all use and cite different data, the same data and come at it in a different way. As I said, I'm with this amendment seeking to take a precautionary principle and future proof of legislation. So I understand that other amendments before are shortened this season by two weeks only and I will listen carefully to the minister's views. Thank you and I call on Rhoda Grant to speak to amendment 168 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. This amendment 168 ensures that any changes to the moorborn season are properly scrutinised. I assume that the powers to change the moorborn season will be used because, as we've already seen, the impacts of climate change on nesting birds. When it's right that those changes should be made, it's also right that they should be laid before Parliament and consulted on widely. Many members have tried to adjust the moorborn season on the face of the bill and I have sympathy for gateforbs amendment 102 as we hear that birds are already nesting by this time. Others, with their amendments, have sought to add flexibility to the season and I've got some sympathy with that as well given, as I've already mentioned, the impact of climate change. I'm really concerned that, without robust scrutiny, those flexibilities could be abused and I believe that it would be better to deal with changes to the season under the code rather than the face of the bill and therefore my amendment seeks to ensure that there are proper scrutiny of those changes. Thank you. Any other members? Colin Smyth. Thanks very much, convener. Having tabled the same amendment 102 as gateforbs, I want to express my support for moving the end date for the moorborn season. Ideally, it would be as suggested in amendment 167, but failing that, amendment 102 is a reasonable compromise. I wouldn't have support moving the start date of the season as set out in amendment 101, as I don't think there's any justifiable reasons for doing so. As we've heard, the current end date as proposed in the bill of 15 April for the burning season does overlap the breeding season of several bird species that often nest on moorland. The point about having evidence has been raised. NatureScot in their 2014 document, bird breeding season dates, in Scotland listed 18 species whose breeding season overlaps the end date. Climate change is driving this ever higher. We've also heard the evidence from the BTO report nesting dates of moorland birds in English, Welsh and Scottish uplands. There is a strong case for having a mechanism with proper scrutiny by-parliament, with primary legislation to amend this date as climate change continues to have an impact. However, the bill does, as it stands, ask us to set a date, and I believe that the date that is being proposed is too late. The end date has been brought forward in Wales from 15 April to 31 March, based on the current evidence of breeding seasons and climate change. At the very least, we should be replicating that in Scotland. Thank you, Minister. Thank you, convener. It's important to remember the purpose of creating and having a moorborn season, which is to ensure that moorborn is only carried out when the risk of damage to economic, social and environmental interests is at a minimum. There are different permitted reasons for carrying out moorborn, depending on whether it is on peatland or whether it is carried out during a prescribed season. Rachael Hamilton's amendments 183 and 184 would extend the period for which a moorborn licence can be granted until 30 April. They also allow the licence to be granted for additional purposes between 1 and 30 April. As we just heard from Kate Forbes, we have a very good reason to bring forward the start of the closed season to protect ground nest and birds. To then accept the amendment that pushes that season back to the end of April, albeit in limited circumstances, would not be appropriate or good practice. I do not believe that we have been provided with any evidence to support the changing dates or purposes for which moorborn can be undertaken, as proposed by Rachael Hamilton in those amendments. However, I do understand that the science around moorborn is constantly evolving and that the impacts of climate change mean that we may need to adapt our approach in the future. That is why Scottish ministers already have a power in section 123 of the bill to amend the moorborn season if they thought it necessary or expedient to do so for the purpose of conserving, restoring or enhancing the natural environment, preventing the risk of wildfires or in relation to climate change. The power is subject to the affirmative procedure, given Parliament an enhanced scrutiny role, and there is a requirement to consult those likely to be interested in or affected by the making of moorborn, ensuring that this power would be used proportionately. For these reasons, I will not support amendment 183 and 184, and I encourage the committee members to vote against them. Turning to Edward Mountain's amendments, amendment 39 would also allow moorborn season to be extended to the 30th of April, and this time with the permission of the landowner. That seems to me to be delegating the authority to the landowner rather than the ministers or NatureScot, which I find rather strange. However, for the same reason as Rachael Hamilton's amendments in extending the moorborn season, I cannot support amendment 39 and I encourage the committee to vote against that. Amendment 25, if you allow me to finish these points. Amendment 25 and 26 seeks to change the moorborn license provisions so that a licence can only be granted from outside the moorborn season for the purpose of conserving, restoring, enhancing or managing the natural environment for research or for public safety. However, that has been lodged as a result of a misunderstanding of the bill. Section 112 sets out the purposes that can only be licensed during the open season, so any purposes that are not explicitly mentioned in section 112 are available for an out-of-season licence. The bill already allows a licence for out-of-season moorborn to be granted on non-peatland for the purposes of conserving, restoring, enhancing or managing the natural environment, research or preventing or reducing the risk of wildfires causing harm to people or damage to property. Mr Mountain's amendments therefore duplicate provisions for research and conserving, restoring, managing or enhancing the natural environment on non-peatland for out-of-season moorborn. Examples of that might be to create a suitable seedbed at the appropriate time of year for the natural regeneration of nearby native woodland or to research the effects of moorborn on dry heath in early September. Regarding public safety, that was previously included as a reason for which an out-of-season moorborn licence could be granted in the hill farming after 1946. However, when creating the new moorborn provisions for the bill, we took the view that public safety is a very wide term, which could be interpreted in many different ways, and so the narrow provision for preventing or reducing wildfires causing harm to people or damage to property was introduced. I'll take Edward Mountain's. Mr Mountain, I'm sure you'll accept that things happen at different paces across Scotland. As a farmer you'll know that, that grass will grow quicker in Perthshire than it will in the highlands. That affects all wildlife as far as the seasons go because things will maybe take longer when it is colder and darker for longer, which is why I'm asking for a geographical variance across Scotland. It seems to me to treat Scotland as all the same. Is it somewhat strange when you're looking to try and control management and make management on the level of the best possible outcome for that environment? I'm not seeking a meeting, I seem to be the only one that hasn't had a meeting with you or offered a meeting with you, but will you accept there are variances across Scotland and that it would be worth considering geographical variances to take into a latitude and conditions? I do accept there are variances, but I also accept that Nature's Scott have the ability to extend a murbun season if that is what's required. Rachel Harman, I'll take your intervention as well. Thank you minister. It was just specifically about the Government's training aspiration and the points that I made around that there will be more people who will be coming forward. We're going to come to training. Do you mind if we come back to it later? Yes, thank you. Bear with me till I find where I am. Right, okay. This is because there are only ways in which we can foresee murbun. Due to the way these amendments are worded, they also allow a murbun licence to be granted for the purpose of the natural environment on peatland out of the murbun season. That is the potential to undermine the intention behind the majority of the murbun provisions in the bill. For those reasons, I hope that Edward Mountain has assured that the points he was seeking to make with his amendments are already covered. We will see that his amendments 25 and 26 are unnecessary and I hope, therefore, that he doesn't press them. Amendment 40 would change the regulation making power in section 16 so that the Scottish ministers want to amend the murbun season dates through secondary legislation for the purpose of preventing and reducing risk of wildfires causing harm to people or damaged the properties that they would need to take account conditions in particular geographic areas. I hope that that also assures Edward Mountain. This amendment is unnecessary because the bill already sets out the power to change the murbun season dates can make different provisions for different purposes for different land and for different years. The bill, therefore, already provides the ability for regulations to provide different provisions depending on the type of land which could include land that is or is not at high risk of wildfire. I am therefore not convinced that this amendment is necessary. However, I will undertake to give it further consideration ahead of stage 3, particularly to ensure that the purpose of the regulation is sufficiently clear. So I would ask Edward Mountain not to press this amendment as well. Kate Forbes amendments 101 and 102 seek to mitigate biodiversity loss, and I recognise the importance of biodiversity and the urgent need for action at all levels, both here, elsewhere in the UK and internationally, to tackle the twin crisis of biodiversity loss and climate change and to ensure a nature positive net zero world. By moving the end of the murbun season back two weeks, we were given red-listed ground nests and birds the chance that they would need to breed and produce successful clutches. I have also heard from rural stakeholders and recognised the need for a murbun to be undertaken in the right way and for the reasons that Ms Forbes has set out, the balance is the key. Therefore, I believe that these amendments strike that right balance between responding to the changes to the nesting season arising from climate change and assuring that essential murbun activity can continue. So for these reasons, I will support Kate Forbes amendments 102 and 102, 101 and 102, and encourage members to vote for them. Ariane Burgess' amendment 167, bear with me, would go further than amendment 102 to move the end of the season to the 15th of March. As the committee heard during stage 1, there are a range of opinions on when murbun season should close. The effect of closing the season of 15th of March would be to sufficiently significantly reduce the murbun season, resulting in less time for a murbun to be carried out for the broader range of purposes, including managing for grouse or livestock grazing. For that reason, for the reasons that Kate Forbes has given, I believe that this would not be proportionate nor get the right balance. However, I want to assure Ariane Burgess that the bill includes a power to change the murbun season dates, which would allow us to respond to any new evidence that comes to light in the future around shifting patterns on nesting or the impacts of climate change. I hope that does reassure Ariane Burgess that she does not press her amendment. If she does, I encourage the committee to vote against it. Rhoda Grant's amendment 168, as the previous minister and myself explained on a number of occasions, and on other similar amendments, these changes are not necessary. The amendment adds unnecessary additional burden on the Scottish Parliament when there are already established procedures in place for changes through secondary legislation. It could lead to unnecessary delays in amending the murbun season dates, which could have consequences for the natural environment. I understand what he says about burdens on the Parliament, but the trouble is that we are having so much enabling legislation with the powers being set out in secondary legislation. Without a promise of scrutiny on those powers, I wonder whether, given that there are a number of amendments that I have tabled in this vein, he would be willing to meet me to make sure that, at stage 3, we can come forward with an amendment that makes sure that there is adequate consultation that stakeholders are consulted. There is scrutiny of any changes to all those things in secondary legislation to make sure that people can have confidence that they will not be railroaded into anything that maybe does not work properly for the industry. Let me finish the bit that I was going to say and I will come back to you. The change of the dates of the murbun season would be subject to a firmative procedure as well as a consultation requirement. The Parliament would have an opportunity to consider the instrument and draft to take evidence on the instrument and vote on it, and that is the correct procedure for any such amendment. That is clearly established procedure setting out the requirement for the affirmative procedure. I would also beg the question that practitioners will be involved in setting up the code. I would imagine that practitioners are going to be far better placed to be able to make decisions than parliamentarians. With that, I urge the committee to vote against 1.6.8. I am going to press 1.8.3, but I am just really shocked by the minister. I do not know whether he has been grasped by the civil servant since he has become a minister, but he has now changed on a complete U-turn. He is now supporting 102 convener when it was clear that in the chamber when we debated at stage 1 he suggested to Ariane Burgess that the murbun season should be curtailed earlier. I would like the minister to explain why he has done this huge U-turn. Secondly, I do not know whether I went into a parallel universe, but I thought that the minister was going to address the point that I was trying to intervene on when he said that he was going to address the training issue and the aspiration that the Government has, where hundreds of people will be coming forward to get a licence. Closing the season on 31 March will put that training aspiration at a complete loss. Unless the minister would like to respond, I will ask Rachel Hamilton to press or withdraw amendment 183. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support of the amendment raise their hand now. Those opposed. Those members wishing to abstain. The result is 2 for, 7 against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. At this point, before we move into another large group, I am minded to suspend the committee for 10 minutes for a comfort break. I now call amendment 91 in the name of Kate Forbes, grouped with amendments that show the groupings. I point out that if amendment 150 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 95, 96 or 97 because of preemption. Kate Forbes to move amendment 91 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I am speaking to amendment 91, 92, 96, 98, 99 and 104. Can I first put on record my admiration for those individuals, such as BrightSpark burning techniques, who, with the support of the Scottish Farm and Rescue Service, taught and trained countless Muirburn practitioners? I can also pay tribute to those practitioners who are well trained, experienced and conscientious in the carrying out of Muirburn. I was quite taken aback over the summer when visiting a site near Canich meeting those very gamekeepers that had actively saved businesses and buildings as a result of their many years of experience of fighting fire with fire because of that training around Muirburn. My amendments here bring in the requirement for anybody applying for a Muirburn licence to have completed an approved training course. We know that Muirburn was discussed extensively at the stage 1 evidence session and there were two points that emerged particularly when it came to conducting Muirburn safely. The first is the widespread agreement that training is a must that has been confirmed by input from various different stakeholders, indicating that, given the associated risks and the potential for extensive damage if it is not executed properly, it is important that those who are engaging in Muirburn activities have appropriate training. That requirement for training was also supported by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Deputy Assistant Chief Officer Bruce Farkasyn. He confirmed his support for training. The second point comes right back to where I started. A lot of Muirburn practitioners have already undergone some form of training. They recognise the importance of training and I said that they are very conscientious practitioners. That is already happening on a less formalised basis. There is voluntary training that has been developed by BrightSpark Burning Techniques, NatureScot and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. For that reason, I hope that my amendments make sense, strengthen the provisions in the bill and so on. I hope that that will not add a significant additional burden on practitioners who are already doing that training and have the experience of and the expertise in carrying out Muirburn. I now call Jamie Halcro Johnston to speak on behalf of Stephen Care on amendment 150 and other amendments in the group. I want to confirm that Kate Forbes moved amendment 91. Yes, I did. I apologise. Mr Halcro Johnston, could you continue? I will start right from the beginning again. I am speaking on behalf of Stephen Care's amendments 150, 152 and 153. These are critical safeguards in the face of an increasingly overburden regulator. As I highlighted earlier, NatureScot already processes some 5,000 licensing applications annually, meaning that there is a tangible risk that Muirburn licences will face undue delays in processing potentially to the detriment of landscape resilience to wildfire risk or habitat favourability for game and wildlife. We feel it is vital that a safeguard be built into this licensing scheme that will safeguard against delays caused by an increasingly overburden regulator. If I might speak very briefly on amendment 154 in the name of Ariane Burgess, this amendment stands to have a hugely detrimental impact on the ability of land managers to make Muirburn. Successive scientific studies are clear about the role of Muirburn in providing favourable habitat for assemblage of moreland game and wildlife. In addition, it has been well documented that Muirburn has an important role to play in conserving, restoring, enhancing and managing the natural environment, as well as managing habitat for livestock. Such an amendment would have a catastrophic implications for a range of Muirburn users. Paul Rhoda Grant, to speak to amendment 97, to speak to amendment 97 and other amendments in the group. Amendment 97 changes the test that an application must pass in order for a Muirburn licence to be granted for the undertaking of Muirburn on Peatland. The bill currently sets out that a licence may be granted for Muirburn on Peatland if it is necessary for the specified purpose, and there is no other method of vegetation control available. During consideration of evidence at stage 1, a number of interested parties raised the concern that there may be circumstances where other methods of vegetation control may be available, but that they may not be practicable or effective in all circumstances. They expressed real worry that the wording in the bill as it stood would significantly restrict the ability to make Muirburn to such an extent that it would be impossible to carry out Muirburn on Peatland. I do not think that it was intention of the bill to place such a high bar on licence applications, and it would, in my view, be preferable instead if natureScot considered a case by case basis these matters, whether any other methods of vegetation control would be suitable and as a result whether or not a licence should be issued. It is likely that there will always be other methods of vegetation control such as cutting available, but they may not be practical or desirable. For example, they may not be suitable due to the topography of the land. My amendment would ensure that natureScot could consider on a case by case basis any practical issues arising from alternative methods of vegetation control and give them the flexibility to issue a licence for Muirburn if no other method of vegetation control was practical. It would be my hope also that local people such as those in my constituency would be listened to as part of that process to allow their knowledge and experience to inform the decision making. In the same way, there is expertise in natureScot that should also be listened to and informed local practice. That dialogue and working together will increase and improve everyone's knowledge about Muirburn and local peatlands. For all those reasons, I would encourage committee members to vote for amendment 97, not least because it responds to one of the recommendations that we made in our stage 1 report. I call Rhoda Grant to speak to amendment 151 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. My amendment refers to issues to be taken into account when granting a Muirburn licence on peat. The bill states that Muirburn can only be allowed if there is no other option for the management of a fuel load. In evidence, we heard that cutting while killing plants does not deal with the fuel load and indeed decaying vegetation can often be more flammable. Therefore, amendment 151 allows Muirburn and peatland for managing fuel load. The amendment is to ensure that the prevention of wildfires is taken into consideration in the terms of a Muirburn licence. Alasdair Allan's amendment 97, which he has just spoken to, I think seeks to do a similar thing to my own amendment. I believe that both amendments would work well together on large members to support both. I call Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 28 and other amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. I will speak to my amendment first. This is the fact that I believe that a licence should be issued for a period of 10 years. Of course, the minister will argue that this is too long, which is entirely why I have put within this section the ability for the Government to remove that licence or to have a period of less than 10 years if the Scottish ministers consider it necessary for environmental reasons. The baseline is 10 years, but there is the option for the Government to have a lesser period for 10 years. That seems to be pragmatic in the same way that we have driving licences for a period of time, unless there is a reason why we should not have it for a period of time. I am not impressed with the wrong word, but I am taken by Kate Forbes amendments about pre-training courses. I think that training courses for all people in Muilburn are particularly helpful. I think that it would be extremely helpful if firefighters went on those training courses and understood the need for how to do Muilburn. One of the things of controlling wildfires is about the ability to backburn and how to stop a fire getting out of control. I have to say that that is not maybe now, but certainly when I was a practitioner of it, there was not always evidence on firefighters that they understood the principle of backburn. Certainly on occasions, I remember local fire officers 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. I am sure that the Minister would like to see firefighters trained to the best ability. If there is an approved training course being run, why not get them on it as well? I am not taken by Rhaedda Grant's amendment 1.1. We have to remember that Muilburn is an option. There are other ways of reducing the fuel load, which is by flailing, but that does not necessarily reduce the fuel load always. It can often not be possible to get tractors on to Muilburn or into difficult areas. I think that it is important that fuel loads can be managed by burning, but for other reasons, not just managing fuel loads, which your amendment suggests. I was unsure that he understood the intent of my amendment, which was to allow Muilburn to other methods of heather control. I am slightly deaf. Amongst many faults, if you could speak up. He seems to be indicating that my amendment was encouraging the cutting of heather and other fuel loads rather than burning it wasn't the very opposite. I am just saying that my understanding of the amendment reduces what Muilburn can be useful to reducing fuel loads. If I have misunderstood that, I am not sure that I have, but if I have misunderstood it in reading it, that is the point that I come up with. In conclusion, a licence for 10 years is entirely appropriate unless the Government decides for environmental reasons that it should be less. I would be surprised if the minister did not want to accept that, or at least agreed to meet me to discuss it further. My amendment 154 imposes a new condition where a licence is granted for peatland, requiring the person who is undertaking Muilburn to do so in a way that minimises the damage to the peatland. As we know, healthy peatland is a vital resource in our efforts to reduce our climate emissions as it locks up carbon. The evidence base around Muilburn and wildfires is contested, as we have already heard this evening. Personally, I remain concerned that escaped fires from Muilburn could contribute to wildfires in Scotland's uplands, creating a risk to wildlife and habitats and risk of serious carbon emissions from damaged peat. The amendment is a probing amendment seeking to require those with a licence to make Muilburn on peatland that they must do so in such a way to limit the damage. For example, studies in protected areas, Ontario and Canada have shown that linear strip burning of peatland can be effective at creating natural firebreaks in the landscape. Such an approach limits the damage to thin strips rather than burning large patches of peatland, as is more common in the Scottish Morals. My amendment does not prescribe this particular approach, as no doubt there are other similar methods out there, but the intention is that, as a result, the Muilburn code would have a focus on Muilburn methods that can be shown to minimise the damage to our important peatlands. Rachael Hamilton spoke to amendment 160 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. I move amendment 160 in my name. The Muilburn licence will relate to the land, meaning that it is important to specify what the land is being used for in the context of any potential licensing decision. The amendment provides specificity. I cannot ever say that in that regard by stating unequivocally that the licence relates to the land for the purpose of making Muilburn. You cannot say it either, convener. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members? Minister. Thank you, convener. Amendment 91, 92, 96, 98, 99 and 104 of Kate Forbes include provisions in the bill that ensure that the person who will be undertaking the Muilburn has completed an approved training course. There was near universal agreement from stakeholders that due to the risks and the potential for widespread damage when Muilburn is not done correctly, that anyone undertaking Muilburn should be trained. When the bill was introduced, the intention was for training to be a requirement of the Muilburn code. However, having heard from a number of key stakeholders on the issue of training, including Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, it is clear to me that the importance of training demands that it is included on the face of the bill. Therefore, I will support those amendments brought forward by Kate Forbes. Amendment 95 changes the provision regarding Muilburn licence so that the Scottish ministers must grant a licence if they are satisfied that a person is, if they are satisfied that the person is a fit and proper person, having regard in particular to the applicants compliance with the Muilburn code. I understand the intent behind this amendment and I am particularly sympathetic to the point about changing May for must should all other conditions that were previously listed at section 11a and b be satisfied. However, in removing those conditions from the face of the bill, it removes a series of tests that are needed to be considered before a licence is granted. Replacing those conditions with a fit and proper person feels too limiting. Indeed, it could be argued that section 1a already provided for some of this and that an applicant's compliance with the Muilburn code was one key measure to be considered. Section 1b also matters. That gives NatureScot more discretion on when a Muilburn licence might be granted, including the necessity of Muilburn and whether or not there are practical alternatives. That discretion is required because there may be other reasons why it would not be appropriate for NatureScot to grant a particular licence that are not related to the applicant's fitness or otherwise. For example, there may be circumstances where it would not be appropriate to grant a particular licence due to environmental reasons or other factors. While I understand what Kate Forbes is trying to do here and is currently drafted, I can't support the amendment if she's happy not to press this amendment, I'll undertake to look at it again, focusing on the May must part of the provisions. However, if she does press it, I would encourage other members not to vote against it. I'm happy not to press in light of what the minister has outlined. Amendments 150, 152 and 153 add a requirement that Muilburn licence applications are determined within three months. I should have said in the name of Stephen Kerr. If a final decision is not made prior to the end of three months, then the application will be deemed to have been granted. Those amendments would effectively undermine the process that we are seeking to put in place to better govern Muilburn practice. They also fail to take into account the many reasons why a licence application might not be processed in three months. Indeed, those amendments do not account for applicants taking a long time to return information to NatureScot and may create a situation in which an application is granted automatically through the passage of time, even where an application is flawed, inappropriate or in respect of which there is incomplete information. Those amendments also reduce the opportunity for NatureScot to work with applicants to gather the required information and could lead NatureScot rejecting applications for missing information rather than having an iterative and more constructive approach. For the reasons that I have just mentioned, I will not support those amendments and I ask the committee to vote against them. Amendment 97 in the name of Alasdair Allan allows Muilburn to be undertaken on peatland if no other method of vegetation control is practicable rather than available. Demonstrating that other less potentially damaging land management techniques is a key part of ensuring that our valuable peatlands are protected. However, I have heard concerns from stakeholders that even though other methods may be available, they may not be suitable. Practical feels like a more appropriate test and I am clear that this will still be a high bar to meet and will require all parties to respect the intent of the legislation. A more expensive approach could still be practical, a scheme that takes longer to complete could still be practical. However, there may be times where the cost of an alternative due to Scotland's topography might be prohibitive, particularly for the small land managers and owners that live and work in constituencies such as Alasdair Allan. I would hope that NatureScot and the applicants could work together to arrive at a mutually discussed and agreed decision. Therefore, I support Alasdair Allan's amendment and encourage the committee to vote for it when the time comes. Amendment 151 in the name of Rhoda Grant amends the Muirburn licence test to Muirburn on peatland so that there would have to be no other method of vegetation control available, taking into account the need to manage fuel loads to prevent or to reduce the risk of wildfires. I understand why Rhoda Grant is trying to do with this amendment and I think that the mitigation and prevention of wildfire is a key part of the provisions in this bill. However, given amendment 97 changes the licence and test for determinants when Muirburn can be conducted on peatlands to when no other method of vegetation control is practicable, if it is accepted, Rhoda Grant's amendment 151 will not have any material effect on the licence and test. As this amendment is no longer necessary, I would hope that Rhoda Grant will not press it and this would allow further consideration to be given how the guidance relating to wildfire prevention can be clarified ahead of stage 3. If pressed, because this provision is not needed, I do not see the point in voting it into the bill and for that reason I cannot support this amendment and encourage committee members to vote against it. Amendment 28 from Edward Mountain inserts a condition to require that a Muirburn licence must be for 10 years and can only be shorter if deemed appropriate for environmental reasons. We have had a year in which we have had a very early warm period, water scarcity, a wet summer, flooding, a short, sharp cold spell and wind-related gales and storms, often with non-proveiling winds dominating. The year in front of us may prove to be completely different in terms of weather events. The point is that our climate is changing continually and we need the ability to be able to respond to that. That changing climate and weather has also resulted in more wildfires, including on peatland. This amendment would therefore defeat one of the core purposes of the bill to allow us to regulate and control in a much more orderly flashing, the making of Muirburn. Further to this, it may be quite onerous for some applicants to determine what their Muirburn plan will be for a 10-year period. The current provisions also allow NatureScot the flexibility to issue licences for periods of time thought appropriate in the individual circumstances. For all these reasons, I cannot support this amendment and I encourage members to vote against it. Amendment 154, in the name of Ariane Burgess, seeks to ensure that Muirburn conducted for certain purposes on peatland seeks to minimise damage to the underlying peat. I appreciate the intention behind this amendment, however, I think that the best place for that requirement is through the Muirburn code and the approved training courses that are part of the bill. Both of these mechanisms will ensure that practitioners have an appropriate level of knowledge and experience when making Muirburn, so therefore I cannot support this amendment and encourage members to vote against it. I will take an intervention. Comments on my amendment and I'm satisfied by your assurance that the methods to minimise damage will be explored through the Muirburn code and training requirements and I will not be moving amendment 154. Thank you. On the question of the practitioners that are going to be required to complete the training courses, those practitioners, are they just going to, is it going to be solely and exclusively those who put a match to Muirburn and those who extinguish and nobody else? The training courses, will they be specifically required for those people who either burn Muirburn or practice Muirburn as in put a match to vegetation or extinguish vegetation? What I can tell you is that I've already got a request from Breitspark for a face-to-face meeting with which I have agreed to and we will look at all the requirements of what the training is going to be. Thank you minister. That's satisfied you, thank you. So amendment 160 changes the definition of an relevant person for the purpose of the Muirburn licensing scheme. Sorry, again, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, I apologise. I understand that this amendment seeks to ensure that only offences committed by people involved in the management of the land for the purpose of making Muirburn can result in a licence being modified, suspended or revoked. But NatureScot already has the discretion not to suspend the licence and I think we've argued this point already. Therefore a licence holder may not be sanctioned as a result of a person involved in managing the land to which the Muirburn licence relates committing a relevant offence. This amendment unfortunately leads to loopholes which could easily be used to circumvent the provisions and intentions of the bill. For example, where someone involved in managing the land but not for Muirburn purposes commits an offence by making Muirburn not in accordance with the licence, this amendment would mean that this illegal Muirburn would not lead to the licence being suspended or revoked unless the person who was managing the land for the purpose of Muirburn caused or permitted it. So I've got some difficulty with the potential outcome here for workers on the land. Should an employee be the one who commits an offence, they should not be the only ones who bear the consequences of that. The land owner or the manager should do too. Otherwise we would potentially see employees in a much more precarious position than they are now. It also would not result in good employment practice, with the lack of training, guidance or supervision, for example, being or in some cases becoming the norm. It is right and proper for employees to expect that support and it is right and proper that it should be that the licence holders, which also bear the responsibility of offences for offences committed by those they employ or otherwise, allow to participate in land management. So I cannot support this amendment. I encourage committee members to vote against it. Thank you, convener. Thank you. I call Kate Forbes to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 91. Thank you, convener. In the interests of time, I will go straight to pressing. Thank you. The question is that amendment 91 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are. I call amendment 147 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 111. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 147 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support of the amendment raise their hand now. Those who oppose the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. And the result of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment is therefore not being agreed. I call amendment 92 in the name of Kate Forbes. We are already debated with amendment 91. Kate Forbes, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 92 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendment 3 in the name of John Mason, already debated with amendment 111. Alasdair Allan, to move or not move. Mr Mason is in the gate. He doesn't wish me to move. Thank you. Not moved. I call amendment 148 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 111. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 148 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support of the amendment please raise your hand now. Those against the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 93 in the name of Finlay Carson, already debated with amendment 78. Finlay Carson, to move or not move. So the question is that amendment 93 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members in support of the amendment please raise their hands now. Those members opposed. Those members wishing to abstain. And the result of the vote is 4 for 5 against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 94 in the name of Alasdair Allan, already debated with amendment 143. Alasdair Allan, to move or not move. If I may convey, I should have explained that this amendment merely gives the legal definition of a crofter for the purposes of amendment 90, which, not having been passed, means that this does not make much sense on its own, so I would not move it. I call amendment 24 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 22. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. Sorry, 24. 24. Not moved. And the question is that section 10 be agreed. Are we all agreed? I now call amendment 149 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 143. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move. I call amendment 150 in the name of Stephen Kerr, already debated with amendment 91. And I remind members that if amendment 150 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 95, 96 or 97 due to pre-emption. Jamie Halcro Johnston, to move on behalf of Stephen Kerr, moved. And the question is that amendment 150 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members in support of the amendment raise your hands now. Those members opposed. Those members wishing to abstain. And the result of the vote is 346 against. Amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 95 in the name of Kate Forbes, already debated with amendment 91. Kate Forbes, to move or not move. I am not moved. I call amendment 96 in the name of Kate Forbes, already debated with amendment 91. Moved. Moved. The question is that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendment 97 in the name of Alasdair Allan, already debated with amendment 91. Alasdair Allan, to move or not move. Moved. The question is that amendment 97 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendment 151 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 91. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 98 in the name of Kate Forbes, already debated with amendment 91. Kate Forbes, to move or not move. To move. The question is that amendment 98 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendment 25 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 183. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. Sorry, I am 25. I am sorry, I am out of sequence here. I am not going to move it because I am not sure which one I am moving. Sorry, hold on. The new year of the season. Oh sorry, yes, I will move it. Thank you, sorry. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. And it will be division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members opposed. Those members abstaining. The result of the vote is 2, 4, 7 against. The amendment is therefore not being agreed. I call amendment 152 in the name of Stephen Kerr, already debated with amendment 91. Do you mean Halcro Johnston to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 152 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members in support of the amendment, please raise your hand. Those members opposed. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2, 4, 7 against. The amendment is therefore not being agreed. I call amendment 26 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 183. Edward Mountain to move. I apologise, convener. I jumped the gun. I'm not going to move amendment 26. Okay, thank you. I call amendment 27 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 22. Edward Mountain to move or not move? Not moved. I move to the question is that section 11 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are all agreed. I call amendment 153 in the name of Stephen Kerr, already debated with amendment 91. I call on Jamie Halcro Johnston to move or not move. Move. The question is that amendment 153 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise their hand. Now. Those members not supporting. And those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 247 against. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 28 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 91. Edward Mountain to move or not move? Move. And the question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand. Now. Those members opposed. And those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 247 against. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 154 in the name of Ariane Burgess, already debated with amendment 91. Ariane Burgess to move or not move? Not moved. Thank you. Not moved. I call amendment 29 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 22. Edward Mountain to move or not move? Not moved. And the question is that section 12 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendment 51 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 179. And I remind members if the amendment 51 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 72 because of preemption. Minister, to move formally. Please. Thank you. The question is that amendment 51 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendment 73 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 179. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move? Not moved. The question is that amendment 73 be agreed. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those opposed to the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. And the result of the vote is 2 for 7 against the amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 155 in the name of Stephen Kerr, already debated with amendment 179. Jamie Halcro Johnston to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 155 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members opposing the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. And the result of the vote is 2 for 7 against the amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 156 in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 179. Beatrice Wishart to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 157 in the name of Beatrice Wishart, already debated with amendment 179. Beatrice Wishart to move or not move? Not moved. I call amendment 157A in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 179. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move? Not moved. The question is that amendment 157A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members opposed. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against the amendment has therefore not been agreed. Beatrice Wishart to press or withdraw amendment 157. Withdraw. The member has indicated that he wishes to withdraw the amendment. Does any member have an objection? I thought Beatrice Wishart didn't move 157. Well, my apologies. It wasn't moved. Beatrice Wishart to press or withdraw amendment 157A in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 179. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move? Not moved. The question is that amendment 174 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members opposed. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2 for 7 against the amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 158 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 179. I remind the members that amendment 158 is agreed to. I cannot call amendment 159 through preemption. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 158 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those opposed. And those members wishing to abstain. In the result of the vote is 2 for 7 against the amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 159 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 179. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 159 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members opposed. Those members wishing to abstain. In the result of the vote is 2 for 7 against the amendment has therefore not agreed. I call on amendment 52 in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 179. Minister to move formally. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendment 160 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 91. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move? I'm not going to press this. Thank you. You're not moving? No. Thank you. I call amendment 30 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 22. Edward Mountain to move or not? Sorry. I'm not moved. Thank you. The question is that section 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendment 99 in the name of Kate Forbes, already debated with amendment 91. Kate Forbes to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 99 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are all agreed. I call amendment 161 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 179. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move? Move. And the question is that amendment 161 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support of the amendment raise your hands now. Those members opposed. Those members wishing to abstain. And the result of the vote is too far, seven against. The amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 162 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 179. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move? Move. The question is that amendment 162 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support of the amendment raise your hands now. Those opposed. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is too far, seven against. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 31 in the name of Edward Mountain, grouped with amendments 36, 37 and 43. Edward Mountain to move amendment 31 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, convener. And this is a new section, which I'm suggested is introduced into the bill. Now, there is a reason behind this, and it, bizarrely enough, is driven by the Crofting Law Reform Group, which we discussed in the last Parliament. In fact, the Government promised to bring forward a bill on crofting law reform, but failed to do that. And it's to try and update the Government, who seems to be quite intent on working in the old fashion way, is to encourage the Government to have a register for mule burn licenses, which are available for people to look at online, and encourage the Government to make that available for public inspection, so making it more open. And also, suggesting to the Government that the rather outdated and old fashion way of demanding that an advert is paced in a newspaper about mule burn that's going to be carried out, be dropped. We all know that placing adverts in newspapers, in fact, argued very eloquently by the Crofting Federation, is an extremely expensive way of carrying out advertisements, and not read by many people either. In fact, a lot of people miss the advertisements in local papers because they don't look at that particular section. So, there is also a need to, in my mind, for the Government to be conscious about the cost and to have need for it, which is why amendment 37 is in there, and this is the whole point of this register. To me, it seems open, logical, online, and clear without incurring massive amounts of cost. I'm not sure whether it's not to like about it, convener. I will look forward to hearing from the Minister why he thinks it's a bad idea. Any other members? Minister. Thank you, convener. Amendment 31, 36 and 43 set out a new section to acquire. NatureScot keeps a public register of mule burn licenses granted under part 2 of the bill, and that notices of mule burn activity can be placed in that register. I'm sympathetic to the intentions of the amendments and I agree that transparency is important, but not just in the way that these licences will operate, but for all of the licences operated by NatureScot. That is why, under the Butehouse agreement, we have made the commitment to review the wider species licensing systems and the introduction of a public register of licences to improve transparency, bearing in mind data protection and safety of licence holders. I therefore think it would be better to allow for the review that has just been announced to be undertaken and options presented around creating a register potentially covering a range of licences. That would seem a more appropriate way rather than providing here for a register only in respect of mule burn licenses granted under this bill. It would also allow me to fully consider any GDPR implications before creating any register. For that reason, I would hope that Edward Mountain will not press these amendments and, if he does, I would encourage the committee to vote against them. Thank you minister. Edward Mountain, to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 31. Well, the minister is nothing but predictable. I predicted he wasn't going to like this part of the bill because it was open and transparent and brought the Government into the 21st century, which, under the Butehouse agreement, of course, that's what's being suggested. In fact, I've written it for him, so it doesn't need a review, doesn't need anything more than that, and it needs to save on the costs of advertising. My apologies, convener. I didn't speak to amendment 37. I think you've missed your opportunity, minister, unless you're going to tell me you're going to accept it, I'm not probably going to let you in. Okay, so that's even more predictable, so I think this is hugely disappointing, convener. Can I? Sorry, minister, I'm just... The windhouse agreement, which calls for more honesty, opency and transparency. Thank you, sorry. You obviously didn't hear me. If you were so minded, you could give way to the minister and give him the opportunity to talk to that amendment. That's a suggestion to you. In the spirit of co-operation and because he won't come for a meeting with me, I'm happy to give way, convener. Minister. Okay, my apologies. This is entirely my mistake. Amendment 37 requires Scottish ministers when specifying any additional method through which notice of making Muirburn may be given to have regard to the need for the cost of giving the notice to be reasonable. The requirement to give notice of Muirburn activity is not new and the bill is currently drafted broadly replicates the existing requirements for giving notice as set out in the Hill Farming Act 1946 and covered by the Muirburn code. I am unaware of any concerns or issues relating to the cost of every notice of Muirburn activity under the existing legislation, notwithstanding this, we'd always seek to ensure that any costs incurred by individuals to fulfil the requirements to give notice of Muirburn were reasonable and proportionate. I have no issue with this amendment being passed, though we would want to have a closer look at its framing ahead of stage 3 and potentially tidy up to avoid unintended consequences and to ensure it is aligned with the approach taken in the rest of the bill ahead of stage 3. Well, convener, I'm very glad that I gave way to the minister to allow him to partially agree with something that I've said. I still think it, joking apart, I think it's a very serious point and the Crofting Federation have 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 and it's a very simple system of doing it. I refute the issue of GDPR because it can be given under the location of where it is and who it's contact. No, let's be quite honest. If you're carrying out Muirburn, I've yet to know of anyone who doesn't speak to their neighbours and probably coordinate it with them to make sure that they're working together. Whilst I'm partially enthused by the minister's response, my overall response is disappointing. I'd push the amendments in my name. Thank you, and I appreciate you giving way to the minister. That's certainly helpful. So the question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those opposed to the amendment, those members wishing to abstain, so the result of the vote is 4, 4, 5 against and the amendment therefore has not been agreed. I call amendment 32 in the name of Edward Mountain, grouped with amendments 163, 164, 165, 166, 33 and 34. Edward Mountain moved the amendment 32 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and yes, this is a very simple amendment, which I'm sure again the minister will wholeheartedly embrace because there's no point reinventing the wheel if the wheel's already there. So what my suggestion is under amendment 32 is that the Muirburn code produced for the Scottish Government by the Scottish Mawlins and adopted by the Scottish Government on 22 September 2017 be the first code. It seems to be an extremely good workable document and endorsed by Nature Scott, who no doubt would be the people who were drawing up the new code. So they've already in to do it. Now my amendments, the other amendments in the group relate to Rhoda Grant's amendments to prepare a Muirburn code. I actually think amendment 163 is irrelevant after my amendment and I think the rest of the amendments are actually overtaken by the extremely sensible suggestion of using the code that's already there. Thank you, Mr Mountain. Rhoda Grant, to speak to amendment 163 and other amendments in this group. Thank you, convener. My amendments refer to the Muirburn code, which is fundamental to the practices of the licence holders. The Scottish Government have not given the Parliament any indication of what this code will look like. Those amendments are to ensure that the code, before it is enforced, is consulted on, is scrutinised and evaluated by this Parliament. I believe that that covers the amendments that were set out by Edward Mountain. I do not support amendment 32. The 2017 Muirburn code set out both the current statutory requirements for undertaking Muirburn as well as providing guidance on good practice. It stands to reason that if the bill has passed and changes to regulations for undertaking Muirburn are brought in, the 2017 code will need to be updated to reflect the latest regulator position. As the bill requires that anyone undertaking Muirburn in Scotland must have regard to the Muirburn code, it is essential that the code reflects any statutory requirements. That process of updating the code is already under way and I'm pleased that NatureScot is taking that collaborative approach to developing the new Muirburn code of practice. That process has been managed through a code working group, with additional input from members of the Moorland Forum who provide feedback on the practical and technical aspects of the code. It will ensure that the code is applicable and relevant to all users and audiences and that the code fits the requirements of the legislation. Other stakeholders with an interest in Muirburn will be kept up-to-date with Progress via a correspondence group. Amendment 32 therefore would actually put all this work and activity back and would mean that we have a code that was not compliant with the law and for those reasons I cannot support amendment 32. Turning to amendments 33 and 34, as far as I'm aware, no stakeholders have called for this amendment. As well as setting out the statutory requirements, the Muirburn code will also set out best practice, guidance and will provide a mechanism by which practitioners can be kept informed on any changes or developments in this field. As we all know, the science behind Muirburn is constantly evolving, therefore I think it's sensible to require that the code is refreshed regularly. Edward Mountain's amendments have passed would mean that we could go as long as 10 years before a new code is produced, so for all the reasons I gave around why it would be inappropriate to grant a licence for 10 years, this is also too long an interval, especially where climate change, mitigation and adaptation in wildfire are at the forefront of our considerations. For these reasons I cannot support amendments 33 and 34 and ask the committee members to vote against them. Rhoda Grant's amendments, I can't support these amendments taken together, provide that before laying the revised Muirburn code before the Scottish Parliament, Scottish ministers must publish a draft Muirburn code, consult such persons as they consider likely to be interested and lay a statement before Parliament on the consultation process and how the views within the consultation have been taken into account. I believe that if passed, these changes would create an unnecessary additional burden and would actually slow down the process of updating the Muirburn code considerably. The bill currently sets out that stakeholders will be consulted on the Muirburn code as this is being developed. Therefore, as is currently occurring, NatureScot will be working with all stakeholders to ensure the production or revision of the Muirburn code as a collaborative process. Therefore, it does not seem necessary to then consult stakeholders on something that they have helped to develop. Lastly, this is meant to be a practical working document that provides up-to-date guidance for licence holders. It is not clear to me what lay in the Muirburn code before Parliament will achieve. The code will be published on the NatureScot website and we will of course ensure that Parliament is kept updated of the process of development and when it is published. These amendments would create an unnecessary statutory requirement for what is meant to be active up-to-date guidance. While I can understand the intent for the first updated version of the code following the bill, I do not think that it is practical sense to put every future iteration to respond to circumstances and, in some cases, to do so nimbly and flexibly through such a statutory process. Therefore, for all these reasons, I encourage the committee to vote against these amendments. I would like to point out that the Muirburn code working group consists of BASC, Cairngom's National Park, Game of Wildlife Conservation Trust, IUCN, UK Peetland programme, the James Hutton Institute of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, the RSPB, Scottish Crawf and Federation, Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, Scottish Gamekeepers Association, Scottish Land and Estates, Scottish Wildlife Trust. I have asked that, as those meetings get further down the road, I can sit in on some of the meetings to hear exactly what is being discussed so that the code covers all aspects of what needs to be done. I get that stakeholders are involved, but nowhere does it say that the stakeholders have to agree the code. That is why I am looking for better scrutiny and I would be happy, as with my other amendments, if the minister would maybe discuss this ahead of stage 3 to find out if we can put something in place that makes sure that Parliament has some level of scrutiny over this so that if there are any concerns about the code coming forward that those could at least be heard. I am going to push back on that if the members will accept that on the basis that the people that we have just mentioned are all going to be sitting in the room at a round table. We know how constructive those round tables can be. I have said that I will be sitting in it myself to hear how this process is developing and I do not think that there is any need to bring it back to Parliament, so I would resist that. I call Edward Mountain to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 32. Thank you very much, convener, and it is always a pleasure to listen to the minister tell me why I am wrong. I am probably disappointing for him that I am going to agree with him. That might be the end of his ministerial career on pushing amendment 32. I believe that there is work going on. However, I am minded that the further work is required to ensure that that code is accepted by all the people in the practice. I would look to work with Rhaedda Grant to see if there was some way that we could ensure that everyone accepts it and there is a majority decision rather than just an arbitrary decision and unclear who that arbitrary decision would make. As far as amendments 33 and 34, I still believe that doing this every 10 years is appropriate, not every five years. We will be just finishing off one code and we will be starting the next one. Minister, I am sorry if I have destroyed your career, but I will not be convener moving amendment 32. Can I ask you whether you are pressing it? I am not pressing it, thank you. You are withdrawing amendment 32. The member has indicated that he wishes to withdraw the amendment. Does any member object? No. I call amendment 163, in the name of Rhaudda Grant, already debated with amendment 32. Rhaudda Grant, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 163 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be division. Those supporting the amendment, please raise your hands now. Those opposed to the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 4-4-5 against the amendment that has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 164, in the name of Rhaudda Grant, already debated with amendment 32. Rhaudda Grant, to move or not move. I call amendment 100, in the name of Finlay Carson, already debated with amendment 78. Finlay Carson, to move or not move. The question is, amendment 100 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members opposed. Those members abstaining. The result of the vote is 4-4-5 against the amendment that has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 165, in the name of Rhaudda Grant, already debated with amendment 32. Rhaudda Grant, to move or not move. Not moved. I call amendment 166, in the name of Rhaudda Grant, already debated with amendment 32. Rhaudda Grant, to move or not move. I call amendment 33, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 32. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members in support of the amendment, please raise your hand. Those members opposed. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2-4-7 against the amendment that has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 34, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 32. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand. Those members opposed. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2-4-7 against the amendment that has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 35, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 22. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. And the question is that section 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 36, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 31. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members supporting the amendment, please raise your hand. Those members opposed. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 4-4-5 against the amendment that has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 37, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 31. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I'll just have a little drink after that. Thank you. I call amendment 38, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 22. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. The question is that section 15 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 184, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 183. I remind members that if amendment 184 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 101, 102 or 167 as a result of preemption. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 184 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will have a division. Those in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members opposed. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 2-4-7 against and the amendment has not been agreed. I call amendment 101, in the name of Kate Forbes, already debated with amendment 183. Kate Forbes, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 101 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those opposed to the amendment, those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 7-4-1 against and one abstention. The amendment has therefore been agreed. I call amendment 102, in the name of Kate Forbes, already debated with amendment 183. I remind members that, if amendment 102 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 167 as a preemption. Kate Forbes, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 102 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members opposed. Those members abstaining. The result of the vote is 7-4-2 against and the amendment has therefore been agreed. I call amendment 39, in the name of Edward Mountain, already agreed. I beg a pardon, already debated with amendment 183. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. Not moved, convener. I call amendment 40, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 183. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members opposed. Those members abstaining. The result of the vote is 4-4-5 against and the amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 41, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 183. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. Sorry, just two seconds. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members opposed the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 4-4-5 against and the amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 103, in the name of Finlay Carson, already debated with amendment 78. Finlay Carson, to move or not move, moved. The question is that amendment 103 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members opposed to the amendment. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 4-4-5 against and the amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 42, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 22. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. The question is that section 16 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 168, in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 183. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 168 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those opposed. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is 4-4-5 against and the amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 174, in the name of Rachel Hamilton, grouped with amendment 175. Rachel Hamilton, to move amendment 174 and speak to both amendments in the group. This amendment simply amends the Fire Scotland Act 2005 to ensure that personnel are trained in relation to mureburn. It adds a statutory requirement for firefighters to be provided with training to specifically include sessions in relation to issues arising from making mureburn. It is crucial that our fire services are aware of, understand and provide, provided with the requisite training in relation to making mureburn, not only for the safety of the public but also for the safety of themselves. Amendment 175 requires ministers to publish a report on the role of mureburn in relation to wildfires in Scotland every two years. The report must consider the impact and damage caused by wildfire on wildlife habitats, conservation of natural environment property alongside other matters. It was interesting to note that, in the Canock wildfire and other wildfires, it is very difficult for those people who manage land to understand the significant impact of those specific parts of nature in terms of the damage, which I was specifically interested in. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has been clear that mureburn is not the primary driver or cause of wildfire events in Scotland. On the contrary, the fuel load management that is achieved in the course of making mureburn is often credited with limiting or reducing the effect of wildfire incidents where they occur. Compelling ministers to produce a wildfire report every two years will consider the impacts of mureburn activity on wildfire. Intensity would be a practical and advisable thing to do as wildfire events become more frequent and prominent with the advent of climate change. Rachael Hamilton's amendment 174 charms with something that I said earlier. I would take this moment to remind members that it is often that people who practice mureburn have the best equipment to fight it. Argyrchau cats get people up on the hill and the firefighting equipment that goes back on it. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service sadly does not have access to all those equipment, unsurprisingly, because it may cost £45,000 or £50,000 to equip an argyrchau cat to go out. Therefore, it seems entirely appropriate that firefighters who will often be working beside gamekeepers and more than managers go out on the same mureburn course so that they can work together. If it does nothing else, it will foster good relations and create a greater understanding. For that reason alone, I support Rachael Hamilton's amendment 174. The current provisions in the Fire Scotland Act state that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service must secure the provision of training for personnel. That is purposefully broad and nondescriptive and therefore already covers the issues relating to the making of mureburn. It is already a priority for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to ensure that its operational firefighters are properly trained and equipped to undertake the professional duties that it expects of them. That includes tackling wildfires. It would be helpful if I am not disputing what you are saying. How many firefighters have done a mureburn course in the last three years? I do not have that number to hand, but if you allow me to finish what it is that I am going to say, that might put your mind at ease. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service regularly reviews training capacity against demand to ensure that there is sufficient training capacity and investment in people and resources to ensure that staff are competent and that they are always expected to undertake. In my view, it would be too prescriptive to amend the Fire Scotland Act 2005 to specifically mention mureburn when no other individual fire types are specified in it. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment and ask members to vote against it. In our 2020-23 programme for Government, we committed to working with Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to ensure that continuing priority is given to the implementation of its wildfire strategy. They have produced this strategy in partnership with various agencies and groups in the rural and land management sectors. Within it, SFRS is adopting a burn suppression technique, such as those used in the new Mediterranean-style specialist wildfire units. They remain fully ready and able to respond to any instance of wildfire that occurs across Scotland and substantial investment has recently taken place in rural areas in terms of provision of additional specialist wildfire equipment and PPE. The service plan spend is around £1.6 million over the course of the three-year role of its wildfire strategy. While SFRS is fully supportive of training for those undertaking mureburn, it is not supportive that the training for mureburn is explicitly added to the 2005 act. Amendment 175 would require that a report on the role of mureburn relation to wildfires in Scotland be laid before Parliament every two years. My view is not only unnecessary, it would also create an additional and onerous administrative and reporting burden on various organisations, including the SFRS and NatureScot. The Scottish Fire and Rescue already records and reports on fires through its incident reporting system inputs. Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has also produced a wildfire strategy in partnership with the Scottish Wildfire Forum. The strategy includes a commitment to review the distribution of wildfire danger assessments and measure how effective they are in preventing wildfires. On mureburn and its relationship to wildfire in 2022, NatureScot produced a comprehensive report reviewing, assessing and critiquing the evidence based on the impacts of mureburn on wildfire prevention, carbon storage and biodiversity. It covered decades of peer-reviewed academic literature on wildfire and mureburn and concluded that the evidence based on the impacts of mureburn on wildfire habitats and species is limited and sometimes contested. The report also highlighted that there are a number of knowledge gaps that need to be filled in order to determine the pros and cons of mureburn in regard to a suite of upland ecosystems and murelands, sorry, a suite of upland ecosystems services that murelands provide. Ultimately, those findings recommend that targeted scientific assessment is required to better understand the role of mureburn in relation to wildfire and biodiversity. The detailed scientific research is not something that can simply be generated and reported on every two years. I believe that it is more appropriate and proportionate to monitor wildfires through the existing reporting systems in conjunction with the wildfire strategy. This in turn will enable NatureScot to take into account the most up-to-date evidence on wildfire when updating the mureburn code and assessing licence applications. For those reasons, I cannot support this amendment and ask members to vote against it as well. I will be pressing amendment 174. I have not been convinced by the minister's arguments that the Fire Scotland Act 2005 should not be amended to recognise training for mureburn. It is an important aspect considering the danger that it puts to themselves and to the wider public in rural areas, particularly when using the example of Cannack and others. I also think that, although it was referenced that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service carried out training and are quick to tackle wildfires, there were distinct gaps in the provision of tackling the wildfire at that time last year. To Edward Mountain's point, it is really important that that they are able to use the equipment that others use, such as the equipment that GameKeepers use, and others to mitigate the wildfire risk. It might be that they do not have that in their suite of training. I still think that it is very important, and I am not convinced by the argument. In terms of the additional scrutiny that I am asking from Parliament in terms of a biannual report, that is important. We know that biodiversity loss has not been reported and the minister himself acknowledged that there have been knowledge gaps that need to be filled. I hope that what I will do at stage 3 is to bring back this amendment in terms of getting some more detail around the scientific research that NatureScot does and in the timeframe that they are able to provide it. It is a really important piece of work that must be completed and reported to Parliament. I will not be pressing that amendment because I understand that the two years could be challenging, but I think that I will come back at stage 3 with a different amendment that could possibly reflect the scientific research that the minister referenced. Thank you. The question is that amendment 174 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members, in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members oppose the amendment. Those members wish to abstain. The result of the vote is 3, 4, 6 against. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 175, the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 174. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. I call amendment 43, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 31. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed. Are we agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those members, in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members opposed. Those members wish to abstain. The result of the vote is 4, 4, 5 against. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 104, in the name of Kate Forbes, already debated with amendment 91. Kate Forbes, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 104 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 44, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 22. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. The question is that section 17 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 76, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 169, 45, 171, 170, 77 and 172. I point out that amendment 169 is agreed to. I cannot call amendment 45, 171 or 170 due to preemption. I remind members that amendment 45 and 71 are direct alternatives, that is, they can both be moved and decided on. In the text of whatever is the last agreed is what will appear in the bill. Minister, to move amendment 76 and speak to all amendments in this group. I move amendment 76, in my name. Amendment 76 and 77 changed the definition of Muirburn in the bill. During the stage 1 evidence sessions, we are from stakeholders who were concerned that the definition of Muirburn could be broad enough to cover situations that would not normally be considered Muirburn. The current wording in the bill uses burning of heather or other vegetation, which may capture dead piled-up vegetation, and that would include things like bonfires and campfires. We also heard concern that this definition would include the activity of flame weeding, which is a method used to control weeds in a garden set in our agricultural fields or in fields, golf courses and urban areas. It was not the intention to include these types of activities in the provisions in the bill. The Muirburn provisions are intended only to cover the burning of vegetation on a heather or a muir. These amendments would align the definition of making Muirburn in the bill to what is currently used in the Hill Farming Act 1946 and what is well understood by practitioners so that it means the setting of fire to or the burning of any heather muir. That would provide welcome clarity, and I encourage the committee to vote for amendments 76 and 77. I do not propose to speak at this point on any other amendments in this grouping, but we will listen to the proposers and what all contributors have to say before responding with my winding up to the debate on this grouping. I call Ariane Burgess to speak to amendment 169 and the other amendments in this group. Thanks, convener. The definition of peat has been discussed during the stage one, and this is reflected in a variety of amendments before us. Why is there a focus on peat depth at all? The IUCN's peatland programme is clear that all peat from the shallowest peaty soils to deep layers is vital peat and an integral part of the overall health of peatlands. In fact, the shallowest of peat soils, those below 30cm in depth, are arguably the most in need of protection, being more susceptible to damage and drying out. I was surprised to learn early in my discussions with stakeholders about this bill that the current definition, based on depth, stems from post-war land management strategies when Britain was looking to maximise its natural resources and agricultural productivity. It is not based on ecological understanding or rooted in climate adaptation practices, but rather in an arbitrary assessment based on what was required over half a century ago. My amendment 169 therefore seeks to remove this arbitrary definition entirely, removing the link between the depth of peat and its status under the licensing regime set out in this bill. All peat soils would therefore be subject to the mureburn licensing regime. In a time of climate emergency, we should be looking to maximise protection of peat and not undercutting the work that other parts of the Scottish Government are taking to fund the restoration of peatlands. I am well aware that there will not be consensus on my amendment, and I wait to hear the minister's response, but I believe that it is important to highlight this aspect of the debate on how peatland is defined. Thank you, and I call Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 45 and other amendments in this group. Thank you, convener. We laughed before the meeting that some things that Ariane Burgess and I agree on. The issue of peat depth is not the relevant factor here, because we are not burning peat, but I do believe that carrying out mureburn on shallow peats is bad, because it does encourage drying out. Usually, the shallow peats are in areas where there is greater altitude. That is a huge generalisation, but there is a schist underneath the peat, which is not fertile at all, and it is very difficult for the plants to regrow on it. That is why I put the amendment in as a probing amendment to increase the depth from 40 to 60 centimeters. I was interested in the first thing that when I put that amendment in, I got absolutely slated by people who thought it was amusing to say that I had no experience of what I am talking about. I am probably one of the few people, practitioners in this parliament, that have actually carried out mureburn. I think that not understanding the parliamentary process for probing amendments is deeply unhelpful and should not be encouraged. Therefore, I say to the Minister that the point of my amendment is to try and work out what the Minister feels is being burnt, because it is not the peat that is being burnt, it is the vegetation that is on top of the peat that is being burnt. I think that we have all seen the demonstrations of quick fires across peatland and slow fires. A quick fire can burn might not even melt a bar of chocolate if it was sufficiently quick over the surface of the soil. In fact, I have seen fires on heaths burn sufficiently quickly that it actually passes through without even damaging fence posts or removing the galvanised on the wire around that heathland. It is a probing amendment. I want to see why the Minister feels that the depth of the peat is the prerequisite for discipling peatland and mureburn. I have to say that I am slightly taken by the previous Minister. The current Minister's amendment is 77, but I am concerned about the word heath, because heath could indeed encompass a lot of crofting ground where grassland improvement would be, because by definition it is acidic soils with low fertility. That may include some of the areas on common grazings where mureburn may be being considered and you are now automatically bringing it in with the legislation. I will be interested to hear the Minister's response to my probing amendment and in an acceptance of the fact that it is not the depth of peat that is relevant, it is the actions that is being carried out on the surface. I could just add one more thing. I do absolutely agree as well how things have changed. When I was younger, many years ago, we were being paid to put grips in across Moorland to drain them and to drain the peatland off to make it easier to graze. We are now being paid to put it back. We have come full circle, but we still need to carry out mureburn to control the vegetation. I call Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 171 and other amendments in this group. One of the key aims of the bill is to protect our peatlands by limiting burning on them. Therefore, the definition of what is peatland is clearly important. The bill seeks to place that definition on the face of the bill stating that the land where the soil has a layer of peat with a thickness of more than 40 centimetres, meaning soil, which is an organic content of more than 60 per cent. The consequence of that definition is that extensive areas of shallow peat of a depth less than 40 centimetres will be treated as not peatland, even though they are functionally part of a peatland and often the most vulnerable areas. The best option would be defining peatlands on the basis of a specific depth. I have some sympathy with amendment 169, and there I agree with some of the observations from Edward Mountain, albeit not his amendment. Burning for the purpose of nature restoration will, fire prevention and research would still be allowed under amendment 169, but the need for people to measure depth would be removed. That would be in line with the Scottish Government's response to the Grouse Moor review group report of 26 November 2020, in which it stated that there will be a statutory ban on burning on peatlands except under licence for strictly limited purposes. It is not clear to me why the Government has reneged on this approach in the bill and proposed what I think is an artificial measure of 40 centimetres of peat to be defined as peatland. If we are to have a depth measure, arguably there is a case for a depth of 50 centimetres as set out in the Muirburn code, not least given the available mapping. There are also arguments for the widespread calls for this to be reduced to 30 centimetres, which would provide more protection and is in line with international recognition. However, there is almost universal opposition. I have to say that it does not appear to be any scientific basis for the arbitrary 40 centimetres, which is very much an international outlier and seems to be little more than a case of splitting the difference between 50 and 30 centimetres. If the Government is determined to stick to its view that there needs to be a depth definition, my amendment 171 supports 30 centimetres. A 30 centimetre peat death is the definition used in the peatland code and in the UK peatland strategy in natural England. We will be applying that to common standards monitoring. It is also noticeable that Scottish Forestry has recognised the importance of limiting damage and practice on peat and are now not accepting any forestry grant scheme applications, which include ploughing on soils where peat death exceeds 10 centimetres. Lowering the depth to 30 centimetres, as proposed in my amendment, would have the effect of increasing the area of land that is treated as peatland under the terms of the legislation and so includes some of the shallower peatland areas, which are themselves important large carbon stores. While it would be better to treat areas of any depth as peatland, changing the definition to 30 centimetres is an improvement on the 40 centimetres, including in the bill, and it leases a figure that is widely recognised. Setting the level in this bill at 40 centimetres in my view is a backward step, with no scientific basis, but lowering the depth to 30 centimetres would improve the protection of peatlands at a time when we need to be doing everything we can to protect and restore these important areas. I call Rachael Hamilton to speak to amendment 170 and other amendments in this group. National Survey data of peat at 50 centimetre depth threshold is currently available, so it follows that this is the definition that should be retained to provide land managers with a degree of certainty over where constitutes peatland and where constitutes non-peatland. Before making similar amendments in England, the then Secretary of State George Eustis MP ensured that peat survey data was available at the requisite threshold before passing the heather and grass-burning regulations. The provision of de minimus will also help to safeguard against variable peat depth in small areas, instead of mandating that the peat must be of a depth of 50 centimetres in a single area of half a hectare or more in order to constitute peatland. On amendment 169 in the name of Arrian Burgess, I believe that this amendment is completely unworkable and would unreasonably curtail mirror burn activity by stealth. It would also have a Scotland-wide impact, which would rapidly increase fuel load and carry a significant wildfire risk. On Collin Smith's amendment 171, I don't believe that peat depth or a below-ground metric should be used to regulate mirror burn, which is an above-ground activity. I favour the retention of a 50 centimetre peat depth as a defining characteristic of peatland, because national survey data exists at that depth, providing greater certainty to the end-users. There is no scientific basis to move to the depth of 30 centimetres. Thank you. I now call Rhoda Grant to speak to amendment 172 and other amendments in this group. Thank you, convener. This amendment is similar to previous amendments that I have table trying to insert to a degree of scrutiny into the bill when it comes to subordinate legislation. It is clear that how mirror burn impacts on peat and what different depths mean different management techniques will depend on the science. The science is not clear at the moment, and the minister cannot pretend that there will be consensus on that, even if the science becomes clear as demonstrated by the array of amendments that we have in front of us today. Therefore, any change in the depth of peat impacted must be properly scrutinised. I fear that the minister is more interested in avoiding scrutiny than he is in saving parliamentary time. It is Parliament's role, after all, to scrutinise the Government on behalf of their constituents. Therefore, I hope that he will at least accept this amendment. Thank you. Any other members? Thank you, convener. Amendments 169, 45, 171 and 178 all offer alternatives what the definition of peat should be for the purpose of the mirror burn licence. I want to be clear that the approach taken in the bill in line with wider mirror burn provisions follows the precautionary principle in the depth of 40 centimetres that arose from that principle. I thank Ariane Burgess, Edward Mountain, Colin Smith and Rachel Hammond for laying these amendments, which has allowed us to have this debate during the passage of the bill. It is an important debate and it reminds us that balancing the need to protect peatland against the practical necessities of managing a land productively was always going to be difficult. I think that the debate today, where some of you want it to be deeper and some of you want it to be shallower, leads me to believe that the definition of the bill of 40 centimetres is probably the right way to go and adequately accounts for what we know are the potential risks associated with mirror burn on peatland. The public consultation on the definition of peatland was similar to the divide of 38 per cent of respondents thought it should be 40 centimetres, but those who disagree with 40 centimetres were split between wanting it to be 50 centimetres and arguing it should be 30 centimetres or less. I am also mindful of the fact that the 40 centimetre depth is being moved to England and we have considered carefully the approach taken there, not least the evidence and science that was considered by the UK Government. However, in recognition of the lack of strong scientific consensus relating to mirror burn on peatlands, the bill contains a regulation making power that allows the Scottish ministers to amend the definition of peatland. That means that we can take a proactive approach and respond to new evidence and data in the future to ensure that the definition keeps pace with scientific research. To reassure the committee, the bill provides that the Scottish ministers must consult with NatureScot and such persons they consider likely to be interested in or affected by the making of mirror burn before making any regulations to amend the definition of peat or peatland. A lot of us have been out to see mirror burn and I was just wondering what argument the minister had if he had indeed been out to see mirror burn, whether he witnessed that peat was burned after the mirror burn and if sphagnum moss remained wet after mirror burn at the current depth of 50 centimetres? I accept that this is a difficult position that we are trying to establish what constitutes mirror burn. I was out in a hill last week, in fact it was the beginning of this week. This week has been such a difficult week. I was out there on Monday and I have witnessed it and what I witnessed was absolute perfect burning conditions and they managed to go right over the top of a chocolate bar. I have seen all these provisions but I also know that when it goes wrong peat gets burned so we are trying to find a balance in this particular part of the bill. The regulations developed to amend the definitions. I think that the minister has confirmed the concern that the 40 centimetre figure seems to be a bit arbitrary. It is almost a split in the difference between everybody's different view but he has indicated that ministers by regulation can amend the definition and they would have to consult with NatureScot and others on that. Does he accept that the definition needs to be kept under review given the fact that there is a mechanism to change it, not least because of his words earlier about the growing impact of climate change? Would he agree to meet those of us who have a different view on the level to discuss what mechanisms are in place within Government to keep that definition under review in the future? That would provide some assurance to the many stakeholders that that scientific evidence will be looked at on a regular basis and it would be helpful to discuss that with the minister ahead of stage 3. We are keeping it under review anyway. I fully understand that this is a difficult one in order to get everybody on board and the bill is trying to find that balance in the middle. I will meet you before stage 3 and we can have a discussion about it. Right now, my preferred option is that we sit at 40 centimetres. The regulations developed to amend those definitions would therefore be subject to consultation and also enhance parliamentary scrutiny as they will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Taking this into account, I would hope that amendments 169, 45, 171 and 171 are not pressed and if they are, I would encourage members to vote against them. Amendment 172 would add to the process required of Scottish ministers if they changed the definition of either peat or peatland in the future through secondary legislation. As I and previous ministers have explained that on a number of other similar amendments, those changes are not necessary. The amendment adds another additional burden on the Scottish Parliament when there are already established procedures in place for changes through secondary legislation. It could lead to unnecessary delays in amending the depth of peat, which could have consequences for the natural environment. Any change to the definition of peat or peatland for the purpose of the bill would be subject to affirmative procedure as well as the consultation requirement. The Parliament will have an opportunity to consider the instrument and draft, take evidence on the instrument and vote on it. That is the correct procedure for any such amending instrument, so therefore I encourage the committee to vote against amendment 172 on that basis. The question is that amendment 76 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 182 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 181. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 182 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those supporting the amendment, please raise your hands now. Those members are not supporting. Those members are wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is two for seven against. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 169 in the name of Arianne Burgess, already debated with amendment 76. Can I remind members that if amendment 169 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 45, 171 or 170 due to preemption. Arianne Burgess, to move or not move. I call amendment 45 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 76. Can I remind members that amendment 471 are direct alternatives? The text of whichever is the last agreed to is what will appear in the bill. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. As we are sticking at 47, are we just not moved? Not moved. I call amendment 171 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 76. Colin Smyth, to move or not move, not moved. I call amendment 170 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 76. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 170 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members wish to abstain. The result of the vote is two for seven against. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 77 in the name of minister, already debated with amendment 76. The question is that amendment 77 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 105 in the name of Finlay Carson, already debated with amendment 78. Finlay Carson, to move or not move and moved. The question is that amendment 105 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members are opposing. Those members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is four for five against. The amendment has therefore not agreed. I call amendment 46 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 22. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. Not moved, convener. The question is that section 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. I call amendment 172 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 76. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 172 be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. Those in support of the amendment, please raise your hand now. Those members are opposing. Members wishing to abstain. The result of the vote is four for five against. The amendment has therefore not been agreed. I call amendment 47 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 22. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. Not moved, convener. The question is that section 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The question is that sections 20 to 28 be agreed. Are we all agreed? The question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed and that end stage 2 consideration of the bill. I now close this meeting. Thank you.