���˿���

I invite Mark Ruskell to wind up on amendment 32.

I absolutely concur. As we start to develop the deer action plan, venison will be very much part of the process. I have said a number of times in this committee and in engagements with other stakeholders that we should stop talking about culling deer and start talking about harvesting a product. For me, the two go hand in hand.

Venison must be at the heart of our work to develop the national action plan for deer. I concur with the member’s view in that regard.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 35B, her first in this group, would require consultation with a wide range of stakeholders before a licence for grouse shooting could be modified. Carrying out a consultation with landowners across Scotland every time NatureScot proposed to modify an individual licence, or even when a licence holder requested a modification themselves, would be unnecessary and unreasonable. It would slow down any urgent changes that are required to grouse licences, including changes that are requested by the licence holder themselves. The amendment also seeks to add a procedural step that would increase administrative burden for no positive gain.

I would highlight to the committee that amendment 35 already includes the provision that NatureScot

“may not modify a licence ... to identify a different area of land to which the licence relates from that which was identified when the licence was granted without the prior agreement of the licence holder.”

Amendment 35 therefore recognises that NatureScot should agree any changes to the licence area in relation to any licences that are already in place when the proposed changes come into force.

Stakeholder engagement is vital—and it was carried out extensively before amendment 35 was lodged—but it should not come at the expense of timely and effective decision making. For that reason, I encourage the committee not to support amendment 35B.

As with amendment 35B, amendment 335, also in the name of Rachael Hamilton, would introduce unnecessary delay and bureaucracy before the changes to the grouse licensing regime that are contained in amendment 35 could be brought into effect. The amendment would require the Scottish Government to undertake a lengthy consultation process before commencing the much-needed changes to the scheme. However, we already have mechanisms for stakeholder engagement, and duplicating those obligations would add cost and complexity without delivering clear benefits. As I mentioned earlier in relation to amendment 35B, stakeholder engagement has already been carried out in relation to the proposed changes, so this additional requirement is unnecessary, too. In short, the amendment prioritises process over effectiveness, and for those reasons, I encourage the committee to oppose it.

I am quite happy to have a debate on the issues that the member has raised, if she so wishes. However, I am speaking only to the two amendments that are in front of us. It is entirely up to you, convener, how you want to proceed.

We cannot have a discussion, because it has to be done through the convener, as we spoke about earlier today.

I said that they did not adhere to

“the spirit and the letter of the law”.

That is the actual quotation, and it was the spirit of the law that we were talking about at that point, so perhaps I should have been clearer about that. I was talking about the spirit of the law, because, on 94 occasions, the licensed area was redrawn after the licences were agreed and approved. That is why the change to the licence was made.

First of all, I absolutely understand Mark Ruskell’s frustration. I get that this was a previous Government commitment, but I assure the committee that, as a Government, we are absolutely committed to progressing with an effective ban on the sale of peat for horticulture in Scotland.

Indeed, we are making steady progress towards that. We had a consultation in 2023, and there was widespread support from retail and commercial horticulture; indeed, UK horticulture now uses a third less peat than it did in 2011. Since that consultation, we have engaged widely with the sector to inform the scope and timings of any ban in Scotland. I have visited nurseries that use peat both on a commercial basis and in direct sales to the public; there have been round-table discussions; and research commissioned by ClimateXChange that is soon to be published focuses on the challenges faced by commercial horticulture, in particular, as it plans its transition. I know that Rachael Hamilton does not like that word, but the fact is that we are transitioning away from the use of peat.

However—and the amendments allude to this—the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 would have an effect on such a ban. As drafted, the amendments would commit Scotland, in law, either to the vagaries of securing an internal market act exclusion or to playing the waiting game while the rest of the UK brought regulations into force on the same date. Such approaches would be neither advisable nor desirable; they would not provide the certainty that we need and, crucially, they would not supply certainty to the sector either.

Local authorities have the ability to do things at the moment—if the member will allow me to continue making some points on this, that might make the position clearer.

We have talked about the issues that have arisen after the Dava fire. As a result, Siobhian Brown and I committed to developing the Scottish wildfire strategic action plan, which was informed by the recent wildfire summit, cross-sector engagement and the ministerial roundtable with ���˿���.

The action plan will include prevention, preparedness, response and recovery. It will also consider whether any legislative changes would be required to support the actions within it. The point that I am trying to make is that the strategic action plan will carry a lot of weight.

We should not be pre-empting the work of that action plan, and, crucially, we need to consult local authorities and other partners as we go through the process. We expect to explore the issue further as part of the development of the wildfire action plan.

I cannot therefore support amendment 256, but we will return to the issue in the future, and I am happy to meet Ms Roddick to discuss it further ahead of stage 3, so that we can fully consider the most appropriate approach to tackling the issue. I therefore ask Ms Roddick not to press amendment 256. If she does press it, I ask the committee not to support it.

On amendments 325 and 326, I fully understand practitioners’ concerns about muirburn, especially in the context of this year’s wildfires. That is why we announced a delay to the licensing scheme until the start of autumn 2026. That delay will give us the time to consider carefully how the necessary changes to licensing can be made in a way that does not adversely affect our ability to prevent and respond to wildfires.

On amendment 325, some parts of Scotland are uniquely vulnerable. Our rural terrain and the rich biodiversity are ecologically precious and highly susceptible to fire. When peatlands burn, they release large amounts of carbon, which undoes years of work in a matter of hours. Mr Eagle’s amendment would mean that there would be no difference in how licences for muirburn in peatlands or non-peatlands were treated. We remain committed to ensuring that muirburn is carried out appropriately and safely, in a manner that ensures that the environment does not suffer as a result.

I apologise, convener, but this in itself is ludicrous. At the summit, various experimental things were put forward, with people saying, “Yes, this was tried. Sometimes, this was effective.” That is why it was supposed to be a closed-door discussion—so that we did not have this kind of pantomime, because what we are getting is unfinished decision making put into the public domain as the thing that is going to happen.

I get that Mr Ross is very passionate about the matter. I suggest that we can find solutions if we have reasoned and proper discussions and debates. I have made that offer to Mr Ross and Mr Ewing—and I make it to Mr Eagle, if he would want to do that—but let us try to keep some focus on what we are trying to do. To continue to reiterate the arguments that were made during the statement, to denigrate an organisation that is doing a very difficult job in very difficult circumstances and, at the same time, to try to turn this into some kind of show is just ludicrous.

I asked Mr Ross to give us some time to go through the process. He has already accepted that I take the matter very seriously and that I am working very hard to find solutions, so let us find the solutions without this show.

I will.

Will the member take an intervention?