Chamber and committees

They need those protocols to be in place, because they will be working together. They already work together very closely on domestic cases.

Absolutely.

It comes down to the fact that peatland is so important. The science on that has developed substantially, as we now know how much of a carbon sink peatland is—it is a big sequestrator of carbon. You will know that the Scottish Government has a range of policy objectives and that a major one is the rewetting of peatland, which is now in my portfolio. The regeneration of peatland will be very important in helping us to reach the climate change targets that we have set—both the interim 2030 target and the target of net zero by 2045. More than that, peatland is rich in biodiversity in relation to not just plant life but fungus, which is crucial to the health of the land, and the species that live on peatland.

When activities such as muirburn take place on peatland, we believe that there should be special considerations. We should give some guidance on where such activities can happen, and we should monitor what is going on where, particularly when muirburn takes place on peatland. We should give an idea of what we consider peatland to be and what a licence is needed for—we should provide information on the depth, for example.

It all comes down to the fact that adherence to the code and the applications for licences can add to the science and data on muirburn on peatland, which will be very helpful. We are adhering to the precautionary principle because of peatland’s massive value to the health of the soil in Scotland and to the environment more generally. Its value is so substantial that special measures are required.

Yes. I think that we have pretty much given that assurance already—I think that my officials gave it when they came in front of you. The licences are going to be straightforward to apply for. We are talking about a space where, if people are not adhering to the code, the liaison that I have discussed will take place. I understand why you are putting the worst-case scenarios to us, but, if you need something in writing to confirm what we have already said, we are happy to provide that.

I do not know whether Hugh Dignon wants to comment and, perhaps, identify something in the bill that might be helpful in this regard.

That is where the guidance that NatureScot will develop will come in. We have kept it quite strict in the bill. There is a second part to the definition in the bill, which states:

“‘peat’ means soil which has an organic content ... of more than 60%”—

You can see why that is not in the bill. In collaboration with the many different types of businesses that we are talking about, it needs to be decided what guidance they need, what is acceptable and what practices will take place. That will be dealt with in the guidance.

I guess that it comes back to that definition. We have set out in the bill what we want to see licensing for. As Christine Grahame said, the definition of peatland in the bill refers to a depth of 40cm; the other part of that definition is that peatland is soil that has an organic content of more than 60 per cent.

Members will have the bill in front of them, but I will read from it. Applications for muirburn on peatland could be for the purposes of

“restoring the natural environment ... preventing, or reducing the risk of, wildfires causing damage to habitats”,

or

“preventing, or reducing the risk of, wildfires causing harm to people or damage to property”.

Those are probably the reasons why applications would be made. For example, a land manager might want to create habitats for ground-nesting birds such as grouse. I know that there is an established practice of burning pockets of vegetation to provide areas that encourage birds to nest.

To take a topical issue, there could be a situation in which a land manager wants to use muirburn to prevent wildfire, which would be absolutely acceptable. If the area in which they wanted to do that was peatland, they would have to have a licence.

The last reason is research. Any research would be acceptable. That goes back to the idea of collecting data, which I mentioned in my response to Ms Grant.

Those are all acceptable reasons for wanting to carry out muirburn on peatland. The code and the licensing system that will be set up by NatureScot will include guidance on that, but that is what the bill says.

I will probably have to bring in Hugh Dignon, because I do not have a list of the other methods in front of me. We have to be clear that muirburn will not be the first option if another process could achieve the same outcome, because muirburn has the potential to damage the peat. If someone goes straight to using muirburn without taking other methods into account, NatureScot will probably want to know what else they have looked at and why they cannot use other methods.

On the question of what those other methods are, I ask Hugh to help me out.

That would be a reason for using an alternative method. If someone makes the case that they do not want to cut heather because that could provide fuel for a wildfire, that is a perfectly legitimate argument to put forward. That is where collaboration and communication come in, and that is where the code would come in, too.

It is also worth saying that, if someone applies to muirburn on peat, NatureScot will not just rubber stamp that. I suggest that there should be an opportunity in the application process for someone to state the reason why they want to do that—which is set out in the bill—and why it is necessary. That will be taken into account.

I think that that is a good word to use for those cases, and maybe we need to reflect on that at stage 2.