���˿���

Please bear with me while I find where I am in my notes.

The provision that I mentioned is narrower because those are the only ways in which we can foresee muirburn being required. Given the way in which amendments 25 and 26 are worded, they would also allow a muirburn licence to be granted for the purpose of “managing the natural environment” on peatland outwith the muirburn season. That has the potential to undermine the intention behind the majority of the muirburn provisions in the bill.

For those reasons, I hope that Edward Mountain is assured that the points that he sought to make with his amendments are already covered and that he will see that his amendments 25 and 26 are unnecessary. I hope, therefore, that he does not move them.

Amendment 40 would change the regulation-making power in section 16 so that, if the Scottish ministers wanted to amend the muirburn season dates through secondary legislation

“for the purpose of ... preventing, or reducing the risk of, wildfires causing harm to people or damage to property”,

they would need to do so while

“taking into account conditions in particular geographic areas.”

I hope that what I say on that will also provide Edward Mountain with some assurance. That amendment is unnecessary, because the bill already sets out that the power to change the muirburn season dates can be used to make different provisions for different purposes, different land and different years. Therefore, the bill already provides the ability for regulations to make different provisions depending on the type of land, which could include land that is or is not at a high risk of wildfire, so I am not convinced that the amendment is necessary. However, I undertake to give it further consideration ahead of stage 3, particularly to ensure that the purpose of the regulation is sufficiently clear. I therefore ask Edward Mountain not to move amendment 40.

Kate Forbes’s amendments 101 and 102 seek to mitigate biodiversity loss. I recognise the importance of biodiversity and the urgent need for action at all levels—here, elsewhere in the UK and internationally—to tackle the twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change and to ensure a nature-positive net zero world. By moving the end of the muirburn season back two weeks, we will give red-listed ground-nesting birds the chance that they need to breed and produce successful clutches. I have also heard from rural stakeholders and recognise the need for muirburn to be undertaken in the right way.

For the reasons that Ms Forbes has set out, the balance is the key, and I believe that amendments 101 and 102 strike the right balance between responding to the changes to the nesting season arising from climate change and ensuring that essential muirburn activity can continue. For those reasons, I will support Kate Forbes’s amendments 101 and 102, and I encourage members to vote for them.

Ariane Burgess’s amendment 167 would go further than amendment 102 by moving the end of the season to 15 March. As the committee heard during stage 1, there are a range of opinions on when the muirburn season should close. The effect of closing the season on 15 March would be to significantly reduce the muirburn season, which would result in less time for muirburn to be carried out for the broader range of purposes, including managing for grouse or livestock grazing.

For that reason and for the reasons that Kate Forbes has given, I believe that amendment 167 would not be proportionate or achieve the right balance. However, I assure Ariane Burgess that the bill includes a power to change the muirburn season dates, which would allow us to respond to any new evidence that comes to light in future around shifting patterns of nesting or the impacts of climate change. I hope that that reassures Ariane Burgess and that she does not move her amendment. If she does, I encourage the committee to vote against it.

On Rhoda Grant’s amendment 168, as the previous minister and I have explained on a number of occasions in relation to other similar amendments, the proposed changes are not necessary. The amendment would impose an unnecessary additional burden on the Scottish Parliament when established procedures are already in place for making changes through secondary legislation. The amendment could lead to unnecessary delays in amending the muirburn season dates, which could have consequences for the natural environment.

Medicated grit was part of what the Werritty review considered. Some people would like us to remove medicated grit entirely—there is a very big campaign to do that—but we believe that, on balance, to ensure that grouse moors can function as grouse moors, having medicated grit in the code of practice is helpful to all parties.

It is quite strange to be sitting at this end of the table, having spent the past three years in the seat that Emma Harper is now sitting in. It feels a little odd for me—I do not know how odd it feels for you—but we will crack on.

I will speak to Edward Mountain’s amendments 180, 13, 14 and 16. The Werritty review recommended that trap operators must be required by law to complete training on the relevant category of trap. Training requirements are common in other professions, especially those relating to animal welfare. I know that the Scottish Gamekeepers Association and similar organisations already undertake a lot of training, and I welcome that. I was pleased to hear that Alex Hogg has indicated that the SGA is happy with the training requirements outlined in the bill. I assure him and the association that we would want its expertise and knowledge to inform the development of training alongside other stakeholders.

However, Edward Mountain’s amendments would create an unnecessary barrier for trap users and training operators. Amendments 13, 14 and 15 would exclude much of the existing training that trap users already undertake as part of their wider professional development and, in some cases, it would result in applicants being required to undertake licence-specific training over and above that. For example, the amendments would not allow the relevant authority, which is likely to be NatureScot, to validate courses such as the higher national certificate or higher national diploma in gamekeeping if they were to incorporate training on the use of traps in their curriculum.

In developing the framework for training courses, the Scottish Government and NatureScot will work with stakeholders to ensure that, if a fee is to be charged for training courses, the cost will be accessible and consideration will be given to providing for exemptions in certain circumstances.

Amendments 16 and 180 simply add an extra level of bureaucracy to the training course creation and approval process. The licensing authority will be responsible for ensuring that any approved training courses cover the standards that are required by the bill and other pieces of legislation. Should it feel that it is necessary to do so, the licensing authority already has the power to consult with anyone it deems appropriate as part of the training course designation process. The amendments are therefore unnecessary and they would impose additional duties on practitioners and the licensing authority at a point when the training courses are required to be updated, and lead to delays in the approval process. That would not be helpful to either the licence applicants or the licensing authority, which would have to manage the additional administrative burden created by the amendments. I cannot support amendments 180, 13, 14, 15 and 16, and I encourage members to vote against them.

On Colin Smyth’s amendments 120 and 121, the bill is not intended to introduce purposes for which some wildlife traps may be used but to ensure that wildlife traps that are used are operated in line with training and best practice. The traps covered by the provisions in the bill are largely used by professionals such as keepers and land managers rather than for domestic use. I therefore expect the training to be based around the existing conditions for the use of each type of trap, as set out in the Spring Traps Approval (Scotland) Order 2011, for example. That means that the training should be easily completed for anyone who is currently undertaking legal trapping. On that basis, I do not think that amendments 120 and 121 are necessary, as those aspects of trapping and best practice will be included in the required training course. If those amendments are moved, I would encourage the committee to vote against them.

To answer the convener’s specific question, the spring traps specified in the licence scheme are those specified in the Spring Traps Approval (Scotland) Order 2011, as amended. That order lists the traps that are compliant with the AIHTS and traps that are used for the capture of live birds are not required to be compliant.

I am happy to discuss amendment 13 further with Edward Mountain.

Following stage 1, the then minister, Gillian Martin, received feedback from stakeholders asking for an exemption to allow falconers to take red grouse without requiring a licence. Amendment 61 seeks to address those concerns. Having considered the amendment, I agree with and support it.

The purpose of introducing the licensing scheme is to implement the recommendations of the Werritty review, which focused on the management of grouse moor and, in particular, raptor persecution associated with grouse shooting rather than with falconry. Without amendment 61, falconers would need to apply for a licence or would be able to hunt grouse only by using their birds of prey on land that was already covered by a licence. Given that falconers take only a small number of red grouse across Scotland each year, that seems unnecessarily burdensome. I ask the committee to mirror that view and to support amendment 61.

In the interests of ensuring that I have declared everything that I need to, I should add, at this point, that my daughter has bought me a birthday present of a day of falconry.

I move amendment 61.

We will come on to training, so, in the interests of time, do you mind if we come back to that later?

As I have just said, there would have to be a clear indication that a crime had taken place. However, as we are not legislating in that area at this moment in time, the amendment merely gives ministers the powers, which would have to be brought back to the Parliament. There are safeguards for the industry to make its own defence if those powers have to be brought into force.

I give you the commitment that we can meet before stage 3 to talk about the issue, but I ask you not to move amendment 149 at this stage.

I accept that there is variance, but I also accept that NatureScot has the ability to extend the muirburn season if that is required.

I see that Rachael Hamilton wants to intervene—I will take her intervention as well.

I have a request from Bright Spark for a face-to-face meeting, which I have agreed to, and we will look at what the requirements for the training will be. Does that satisfy you?