Chamber and committees

My amendment 90 seeks specifically to allow crofters to apply for a muirburn licence for the purpose of reseeding to provide or improve grazing on peatland. The bill allows licences for muirburn on peatland only for the purposes of restoring the natural environment, preventing wildfire and research. During stage 1, crofting stakeholders raised concerns about the lack of provision in the bill for muirburn on crofting peatland for the purposes of reseeding, which they highlighted is a traditional and effective practice that, when carried out properly, avoids damage to the peat. Controlled muirburn over small areas of land, such as on crofts or common grazings, is a long-established practice in crofting areas across the Highlands and Islands. Although there are alternative reseeding methods that could be attempted on that terrain, their potential efficacy is viewed as highly questionable.

How do we separate the important but distinct objectives relating to rural policy and agricultural policy? How do we ensure that they are not conflated? How are they related? How do we attach priority to them?

That leads neatly to my next theme, which relates to what should be on the face of the bill—we have heard that phrase being thrown around in committees and elsewhere. We would have some very long legislation if everything was “on the face of” every bill.

We have had some discussion about the rural support plan. Are you content that there is enough in the bill to define its meaning and aims?

I likewise wonder if you will go a little further and offer to work with me ahead of stage 3.

On the basis of the offer that the minister has made to work with me ahead of stage 3, I will not move amendment 90.

Amendment 90 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

I appreciate that time is wearing on, so I will make a brief point. It is a technical point, but I hope also an important one.

There will be a lot of secondary legislation on the back of this bill, and there is a concern to ensure that the balance is right in how that is scrutinised. What are your plans for parliamentary scrutiny around secondary legislation, particularly in relation to getting the balance right with regard to negative procedure for secondary legislation?

Is it the fact that we agree that presents a problem?

I do not think that anyone would disagree with Rachael Hamilton. We do not want to put in place measures that are unnecessary. However, I am keen to know how concepts such as “excessive pressure” and “efficient”, which appear in the amendment, can be adequately defined in a way that works.

On that point, you are talking about estimates of the time necessary to complete the process. Given the variability of time associated with police and court investigations, is it possible to give those estimates?

Okay.