Chamber and committees

Even if it is just the size of this room?

I was concerned because we keep talking about peatland as though everybody knows what that is, and, of course, we do not.

“Available” was the word that I picked up on. I thought that “available” was not a good word.

Does that mean that there would be a legal remedy beyond the appeal procedure? Could a solicitor say that they were going to seek an interim interdict, or a suspension of the revocation of the licence, to try to prevent that from happening? I am trying to follow a process that would be fair to the landowner and to the acting agent. Would there be other remedies, apart from the appeal procedure?

It just struck me that practically everything you can get, you want to prevent.

Are we on to question 9?

I was losing the will to live there for a moment as we went round in circles on codes of practice.

The minister was quite right to say that most land management is done appropriately—it is just the odd case that causes difficulty, if I can put it in my own way. However, every business will now have to comply with everything. How did you come to the conclusion that there will be little to no impact on businesses that currently comply with the law?

I have been waving my hand at you, convener.

If you want to burn land that has a peat layer to a depth of more than 40cm, you will need to declare that—

Let us imagine that a piece of land meets the chemical and depth definitions. Will applicants get guidance as they make their applications to NatureScot so that applicants can say, “Here is my bit of land. Do I have to apply?” The bill refers to

“the land to which the application relates”,

so, if an applicant has to specify that—I presume that they provide acreage or a map or something—will NatureScot say, “You don’t need to bother. That does not meet the definition of peatland”? I am talking about acreage or size.