���˿���

We should perhaps write to the Scottish Government to ask what discussions it has had with the Danish Government on fisheries. I understand that we do not fish for sand eel at all, but I think that the species is important to the Danish fishery. It would be good to understand what discussions were held with the Danish and whether there are any implications for international negotiations on fisheries.

The committee had a useful session on Monday with small-scale producers. It was clear that they do not get a huge amount of Government support, especially those with properties that are under 3 hectares. They told us that they are sequestrating carbon. A lot of them are carbon negative and get nothing for that. Although they do not want carbon trading, they are very keen that the work that they are doing is supported, especially when considering things such as local food networks. How will you support the small operations that are putting an awful lot back into their communities and helping with our environmental targets?

Okay. That means that the code is prescriptive. Will it be laid before Parliament? Where is the oversight? Who will be involved in its development? How will it be monitored and evaluated? Where is the consultation on what it contains? It appears to me that there is no subordinate legislation governing this at all. It is important enough that it should be subject to at least the affirmative procedure.

My amendment 124, along with many of the others that I have lodged, seeks to create greater scrutiny of and consultation on actions that will flow from the bill. Much of it is enabling, and it is important that secondary legislation that will flow from it will also be scrutinised.

Currently, the bill lists only red grouse as requiring a section 16AA licence, but other birds may be added to the list in the future. My amendment stipulates that the relevant committee of this Parliament must be consulted and given time to take evidence on any additions before reporting back to the Scottish Government. Thereafter, in laying its legislation, the Scottish Government must explain what consideration it has given to the committee’s report. I am trying to create a super-affirmative procedure in order to provide greater scrutiny. I believe that that is essential, given the increase in the amount of enabling legislation that comes to the Parliament.

I believe that my amendment would fulfil the aims of Edward Mountain’s amendment 17 regarding consultation. However, I cannot support his other amendments or Rachael Hamilton’s amendments. The legislation needs to be future proof, so amendment must be allowed of the list of birds that can be taken under a section 16AA licence. However, my amendment would ensure that such a change was made after full scrutiny by the Parliament.

It has been raised with me that proposed new section 16AA(8)(b)(ii) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which section 7 will insert, means in practice that a licence may be revoked due to wrongdoing by a person who is outwith the licence holder’s control—someone who is not contracted by them or an employee. An example is a farmer who is a tenant on the land. My amendment 133 is intended to make it clear that a licence may be suspended or revoked only if the licence conditions are breached by the licence holder or by somebody who is in their employment or under their direction.

I support amendment 81. The bill will make section 16AA licence holders reapply every year, which is not sustainable. Given that a licence may be revoked, I believe that a five-year licence would provide the best balance, and I believe that there was broad consensus on that.

I have sympathy with what amendment 125 seeks to add, but I am concerned that it would remove from the bill safeguards on adherence to the code of practice.

Amendment 146 is in a similar vein to Kate Forbes’s amendment 88; mine also covers muirburn on both peatland and non-peatland. The wildfire in Cannich last year highlights the need to manage fuel load on peat as well as in other areas. It seems wrong to me that we spend money on restoring peatland only for those efforts to be ruined by an intensely burning wildfire. It is sometimes the case, therefore, that muirburn is the most effective way to manage the fuel load, and it 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 in this area is not yet conclusive, which makes it challenging to legislate. We need to ensure that what we put down in legislation can be adapted to fit future scientific knowledge. That said, it seems clear that leaving a large fuel load on land is dangerous. Leaving it on degraded peat is disastrous, and we have heard and seen evidence to show that muirburn has caused little harm on well-maintained peatland. My amendments acknowledge the role to be played by muirburn in peat restoration and protection.

Amendment 149 ensures that any regulations that modify the list of purposes for muirburn are subject to full consultation and scrutiny by the committee. I hope that that would give members some confidence in ensuring that any changes are fully scrutinised and will be in line with the science at the time.

I get it that stakeholders are involved, but it does not say anywhere that the stakeholders have to agree to the code. That is why I am looking for better scrutiny. As with my other amendments, I would be happy if the minister would discuss that ahead of stage 3 to find out whether we can put something in place that will ensure that Parliament has some level of scrutiny so that, if there are concerns about the code, they could at least be heard.

So, drawing down any support, even in tier 1 and tier 2, could be subject to compliance with the code of practice; therefore, it is prescriptive.

Which would be the code of practice. We are going round in circles. The code of practice is important.

The policy memorandum states:

“The recommendations in the Code of Practice are expected to underpin good agricultural and environmental practice, as set out in conditions for area-based support for farmers.”

That is the crucial bit. People have to comply with the code of practice to get area-based support. It might not be said that everyone must do everything to the letter in the code of practice, but they will have to follow the code of practice as it pertains to their land to access area-based payments. That means that it is crucial that people understand what is contained in the code of practice and that they agree that it is practicable, otherwise they will not get their area-based payments. That is big.