Chamber and committees

I want to talk about the interpretation part of the bill. We are all talking about peatland, but the only thing that we have on interpretation is in section 18(1), where it says:

“‘peatland’ means land where the soil has a layer of peat with a thickness of more than 40 centimetres.”

I appreciate that you can change that through regulations under the affirmative procedure. However, under section 10, “Application for muirburn licence”, the applicant can say, “I can do muirburn here, because the land to which this application relates is not peatland,” or they can make an application where the land is peatland. I do not know this, so you are going to have to tell me: how do you know what is peatland? You have given a definition of depth only, not acreage or anything else.

I am talking about acreage. I might have a piece of land the size of this room that has peat to a depth of 40cm and complies with your definition. Is that peatland? Can I burn it? Which application do I come under? Who is going to tell me?

Therefore, there is already something in operation that has designated what is and what is not peatland.

I will ask about training in relation to muirburn. Section 10 is on “Application for muirburn licence”. Subsection (3) says:

“An application under subsection (1) ... must be made ... to the Scottish Ministers, and ... in such manner and form as the Scottish Ministers may require”.

Would you consider including in that application a requirement that someone who is applying to carry out muirburn on peatland should confirm that they have undergone training?

You would consider that.

That is good. Thank you.

I am quite happy. I am looking at section 7(2) and proposed new section 16AA(8) and at the suspension that takes place whether or not the relevant authority is satisfied. I am looking at that and, in my view, you do specify. The bill talks about and defines an “official investigation”, talks about a “relevant authority” and then defines what a “relevant offence” is. A number of other statutes are referred to.

If I am right, it would be a pretty dramatic circumstance if a relevant authority such as NatureScot suspended a licence there and then. Something pretty dramatic and obvious would have to have happened. I think that I am also right in understanding that that could be taken straight to appeal.

I have one thing to ask, although you may be unable to answer. How quickly would an appeal be taken? Would it be like an interim interdict, which can be repealed and removed the next day? Would it be quite quick, depending on circumstance, or would someone sit for months waiting for a criminal prosecution and with their licence suspended or amended? Because of its impact, could the process be accelerated by the sheriff? That is what I am trying to find out. That would be a better way of looking at it. It would depend on the circumstances, but I think that that is an important thing to know.

The 2020 act seems a bit of a devil, because it would apply to practically anything, including snares and vaping products.

I know all about that. I am asking whether, if there has been a breach of the terms of the licence, you would use the term ‘crime’, which would seem to me to move the matter into the area of criminal responsibility, where it must be beyond reasonable doubt and so on.

Robbie Kernahan did not say what he would suggest as something different.