Chamber and committees

Yes. Let us look at that at stage 2.

We have to come to a decision about the depth. At the moment, the definition is 50cm, but other people have called for it to be 30cm, so we have taken a compromise position. We are aware that the science around that is not exact and that there are conflicting views.

This goes back to what I said to Alasdair Allan about the value of peatland. We are taking the view that 40cm is a significant depth and suggests a mature peatland. We do not want to be too restrictive by going to 30cm. If science develops—if irrefutable science comes before us—in either direction and shows that 50cm would be better or that 30cm would be more reasonable, we have flexibility to amend the definition. However, for the purposes of the bill, we have gone for 40cm because we think that that is a reasonable depth.

We must protect peatland as much as possible. I went through all the reasons why peatland is important. To use 50cm as the definition was not the right approach. I cannot be more exact. I would love to be able to point to a definitive reason for the 40cm depth, but that is where we have landed, based on the value of peat and the potential risk to that very valuable natural resource.

I will start with your first point, which was that muirburn does not burn peat. I absolutely get that. That is true when muirburn is done well by trained people who know what they are doing, which is another reason for having a licensing scheme. There may be people who are not trained, who are not doing it properly and who are putting peatland at risk.

You said that there is data that suggests the depth should be 50cm, but there is also conflicting data that suggests that it should be 30cm.

Oh—I see. You were talking about the survey maps. I will bring in Hugh Dignon.

Again, that will be for NatureScot to determine, but I would say that that would probably form part of the licence application—that it would confirm that the person applying had had training.

I am just having a look at my notes, which refer to

“Substantial compliance with the Muirburn Code”.

The muirburn code will set out whether training is required. I suspect that such a requirement will be part of the code.

My notes also refer to

“Mandatory training for staff directly involved in setting and managing fires”

and

“Keeping a record ... of each operation.”

Therefore, we have already set out that intention. We would expect to see the code include that and to give more detail. We might even expect the code to say what the accredited training should be. It was good to hear the representatives of gamekeepers who were before you saying that they accepted the idea of training and that proving competence in that area is absolutely something that they sign up to.

I cannot say anything more than I have said already. I take those concerns seriously. As Beatrice Wishart alluded to, we need to have robust processes and procedures, including appeals procedures, and we need to have additional bodies—as we do—to which someone can go if they are not content.

If you mean having a specific offence of tampering with traps that does not already exist, at the moment, we are satisfied that there are already offences that would be committed if people were tampering with traps. I am just having a look—one offence is vandalism under the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, and it can also be prosecuted as malicious mischief.

I have watched all the committee’s evidence sessions, and some people made the point that an additional specific offence could include an element of cruelty or causing distress to the animal. If somebody is tampering with a trap, that has the potential to prolong the suffering of the animal. I am open to suggestions, but there might be existing legislation that could be triggered. For example, off the top of my head, as Finlay Carson will remember, we have the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020, which includes penalties for certain offences against animals. We can look at that.

Members are at liberty to come forward with suggestions. There could be other existing legislation that might be capable of being used in that manner, or there might be new offences. I have an issue in relation to cases in which somebody tampers with a trap, probably because they are—as has been suggested; not by me but by the people whom you have heard from—activists in animal rights or are against the operation of grouse moors and want to get a prosecution in a vexatious way.

I am not convinced that people would really want to do what you are suggesting in a way that would prolong the suffering of animals, because that is probably not their modus operandi or where they are coming from, from a philosophical point of view. From what I have heard, what they are most likely to be doing when they interfere or tamper with traps is disabling them to ensure that they do not trap—by, for example, taking off doors or hinges, smashing them up or whatever they might do so that traps are not operational.

I listened to what Alex Hogg, for example, said about being very frightened by the traps having identification numbers on them and people using them, perhaps, to point the finger at somebody else. That defence is available to the people operating the trap, and the police tend not to criminalise people if there is sufficient evidence that somebody is setting them up.

In answer to the question, I say that I am, on one hand, open to suggestions and, on the other, I am wondering what the reality is with regard to trap tampering and whether it comes from a place of causing additional suffering to an animal. It seems to me that that might not be the case.

I will bring in Hugh Dignon on this in a moment. I have heard this being talked about, and my initial thought is that I am not convinced that fines are the way to go. Sometimes, fines can be the price for not doing something. People might say, “We don’t have to do that. It is just a small fine,” or whatever.

The Government?

That is a serious consideration. I need to be satisfied that it has the resources to do what we are asking it to do. I alluded to the fact that, so far, it has felt comfortable and able not to charge for some services, and I wondered whether a small charge would help. I do not know—I need to have that conversation with NatureScot. Ms Hamilton will understand that, in the past week, I would have loved to have sat down with NatureScot to talk about the scheme in detail, but I absolutely have to do that between now and stage 2.