Chamber and committees

I do not really get what you are asking, so I will ask Hugh Dignon to come in. From my understanding of what you have said, you do not have the right understanding.

It would not be the SSPCA that would establish an investigation into wildlife crime. It would be the police that would conduct such an investigation.

No, that would be the police—and, indeed, NatureScot, as the issuer of the licence. I see what you are getting at, but the SSPCA cannot make claims that will revoke or suspend any licences. NatureScot is the licence supplier; it has the licensing scheme and will work closely with the police in that respect.

As I have said, I see what you are getting at, but I do not think that it is a concern. In effect, what the SSPCA will be able to do, if it has already been called to an area and sees evidence of a wildlife crime, is that as part of that call—which could be about something completely different—it can gather that evidence and supply it to the police.

The SSPCA was saying, “Give us these powers or don’t.” However, the SSPCA and others have been pointing out the issue of evidence being able to be destroyed or removed.

If people declare that they want to do muirburn on peatland, that will be part of the licence. Basically, we are talking about one licence, and there will be a section that asks, “Are you going to do this on peatland?” I cannot say how the form will look, but I think that that needs to be taken into consideration.

I expect that NatureScot will have guidance in place for crofters or anyone else who applies for a licence, but people will also be able to contact NatureScot and ask for advice if they are unsure in any situation. I do not want licence applications that go in to be rubber-stamped “No” when there can be communication between the licence applicant and the licensing organisation.

Yes. That is where I see NatureScot providing advice to individual applicants, which could really help. We are proposing a depth of 40cm, and guidance will be given on how people can measure the depth of peat and declare what they believe it to be. People will be able to liaise with NatureScot and say, “I’m proposing to do some muirburn on this piece of land, but I’m not entirely sure how deep the peat is across the area. Can you give me some guidance?” NatureScot will respond to that and help them. I certainly hope to see that as part of the licensing arrangements. It is not a question of someone putting in an application and NatureScot saying, “Hang on a second,” because it does not believe—

I again point to the fact that NatureScot will take forward the development of the licensing scheme, but I think that it said in evidence to the committee that it will seek a declaration on whether the land is peatland within the one licence. I cannot see that changing. It certainly seems to be the position that NatureScot has set out.

It is up to NatureScot to decide how the licence is taken forward, but the indication from the discussions that I heard the committee have with NatureScot is that it will not have an onerous process that requires people to apply for umpteen licences for umpteen different muirburn activities. Again, it is up to NatureScot to take that forward.

I think that we might use the word “practicable”.

The word “available” might give the wrong impression. Other methods are available, but they may not be the right methods, such as for the reason that you have just given. That could be something that we could look at.