We are now resuming with group 7 section 16AA licensees review. I call amendment 76 in the name of Emma Harper, grouped with amendments 78 and 80. Emma Harper to move amendment 76 and speak to the other amendments in the group. Ms Harper. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As discussed during stage 2, the need for monitoring and reporting must be balanced with the resources available to the Scottish Government and other stakeholders. In response to the stage 1 report, the then lead minister for the bill, Julie Martin, emphasised that the Government's commitment to additional reporting where beneficial was welcomed by me. Amendments 76, 78 and 80 require the monitoring of section 16AA licenses and their impact. One of the key objectives of the bill is to tackle raptor persecution on grouse shooting estates through the implementation of section 16AA license and provisions. The wearer to review highlighted the significant impact of criminal activities on certain grouse moors on three raptor species populations, the golden eagle, the hen harrier and the peregrine falcon, and indeed there have been criminal investigations even recently into the missing female golden eagle called Merrick in part of my south Scotland region. The Merlin has also been identified as being impacted by increased rotational burning and as a significant proportion of the Merlin population nests on moorland they may be affected by the land management activities covered in the bill. Therefore, regular monitoring is essential to assess the bill's effectiveness in curbing such persecution and considering the evidence that has been presented throughout the passage of this bill through Parliament, I strongly believe that the requirement to undertake raptor population assessments is important. Therefore, I move amendment 76. Amendment 76, the name of Emma Harper, is well-intentioned, but the wording is a matter for concern. The intention to assess the effectiveness of section 16AA licenses is not something that I disagree with, but to do so in the premise of the conservation status of certain raptors is a matter that I find concerning. The reason I say this is because we have heard evidence on this bill that a diversity of factors including food availability, habitat favourability, disease, conditions and disturbance all have a bearing on the conservation status of certain raptors. A broadbus assessment of conservation status is therefore not an assessment of all the effectiveness of section 66, 16AA licenses. There should be a forensic interpretation of the data before such conclusions are drawn. Given the open-endedness of the wording in this amendment, I do not think that it is an amendment that should be supported. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for taking that last five-minute break. It was very much needed. Tackling raptor persecution to one of the central aims of this bill, I agree with Emma Harper that, in order to assess the bill's effectiveness, it will be necessary to conduct monitoring and surveillance of the species that we are aiming to protect. Her amendment, which provides for reasonable and proportionate reporting, will help to ensure that the Scottish ministers will be able to assess the effectiveness of the licensing scheme on certain raptor populations. I will therefore be supporting this amendment and I would encourage all members to do the same. I call Emma Harper to wind up the press and withdrawal amendment 76. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that it is absolutely necessary that we monitor what is happening with our raptor species in rural areas. I know that members across the chamber will agree that raptor persecution is despicable and that it is an act that is carried out by very few people. As the bill proposes to support the fact that most wildlife management is conducted lawfully and contributes so much to the rural economy, I am pleased that the minister is supporting this amendment and I encourage other colleagues to do so. The question is, will amendment 76 be agreed? Are we all agreed? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 76, in the name of Emma Harper, is yes 78, no 29. There were no abstentions. That amendment is therefore agreed. In the name of Colin Smith, amendment 77 has already been debated with amendment 61. Colin Smith to move or not move. A call amendment 78 in the name of Emma Harper. Are we all agreed? Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 78 in the name of Emma Harper is yes, 83, no, 30, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. Amendment 79, in the name of Colin Smyth, are already debated with amendment 61. Colin Smyth, to move or not move? Not moved. That is not moved. The question is that amendment 80 in the name of Emma Harper are already debated. Amendment 80, in the name of Emma Harper are already debated with amendment 76. ond wrth I have taken the honour to move or not move. Can you take me to move? Moved. Thank you. The question is that, amendment 80 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are not agreed. There will be a division if there are members who cast their votes now. And the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 80 in the name of I have agreed is yes 84 not 30. There were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. We now move to group 8. Animal welfare inspector's powers. The First Amendment, which is in the name of Edward Mountain, is grouped with amendments 82 and 17. Edward Mountain has moved amendment 81 and has agreed to all amendments in the group. Mr Mountain. I am not going to do what I normally do, which is to start by opening on my amendment. I am going to start by saying that I much rather my amendment was not there and amendment 82 was the one that was approved. I will push my amendment 81, and I would say that if either 81 or 82 fail, then amendment 17 in the name of Rheuwerd-Gran is an amendment that I would be happy to support. Ms Grant doesn't look surprised, nor should she be, because it's a sensible and reasonable amendment. My amendment is such to say that those people who are appointed as inspectors should do a course, Minister. I'm sure you'll support that.  So my point is that an animal inspector who is drafted in as a result of this legislation should do a course. The Government could set the course content that they want, but they should do a course. I'd be highly surprised if a Minister would vote against this, having spoken so eloquently about why courses are required from everyone else. But, Presiding Officer, I'll listen to hear how they can. Thank you. I move the amendment to my name during the speech. I reiterate it. Rachel Hamilton to speak to amendment 82 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have to say that I and my colleagues in the Scottish Conservatives find section 8A of the bill extremely disconcerting. We argue that evidence-based policies making is the duty of government, and particularly so when you're dealing with issues of power, trust and enforcing the law. The Scottish Government commissioned an independent task force to examine whether the Scottish SPCA charitable organisation should be afforded to enhance powers with respect to wildlife crime. The outcome of that review could not be more clear. It is evident that, without the full institutional support of the Crown Office, Police Scotland and the National Wildlife Crime Unit, an extension of powers, whatever the scope of those might be, to the Scottish SPCA, would be fraught, such institutional support is not readily forthcoming due particularly to concerns over primacy of responsibility, access to intelligence or interface with other cases and health and safety risks to personnel. Enhanced partnership working is therefore the recommended course of action. It is absolutely astonishing that ministers have plowed on an extended powers to the Scottish SPCA in spite of the outcome of that review, and it is testament to the complete disdain this Government has for the considered opinion of experts they themselves commissioned, most likely at significant cost to the taxpayer. In addition to this, we heard in evidence that there is a complete deficit of trust and confidence on the part of land managers when it comes to the SSPCA. Ross Yewing of SLE told us in evidence that a recent survey of 129 land managers found that 97% did not have confidence in the ability of the SSPCA to investigate wildlife crime in an unbiased and impartial way. With the extended investigatory powers in this Bill, the SSPCA would oversee evidence gathering in relation to potential offences. I do not see how any such evidence gathering can be deemed independent with its clear and strong opposition to game shooting. The SSPCA is a non-neutral, non-statutory charity that would have a vested interest in the outcome of such investigations. As a relevant example, the Post Office horizon scandal highlights the risks of injustice that can be created when we give investigatory powers, including involvement in evidence gathering and disclosure to a party that is not independent of the subject matter. Those powers should be reserved for the Scottish Police and the Crown Office to ensure procedural fairness. This view is also shared by the Law Society of Scotland who, in relation to the SSPCA, would not generally consider it appropriate that wider criminal investigatory powers would be extended to it, particularly given its role and function as a registered charity. Amendment 82 in my name will remove section 8A in light of what we have just heard, and the Scottish Government's disregard of the very review that it commissioned to examine this question, the clear lack of institutional support from key statutory agencies and the deficit of trust and confidence on the part of land managers. In the event that my amendment should fail, or that of my colleague Edward Mountain, I would strongly recommend members to vote for amendment 17 in the name of Rhoda Grant, which will ensure a review of said powers takes place within five years. Amendment 17 allows for a review of the SSPCA powers. I have several concerns regarding the powers that have been given to the SSPC under the bill. I hear clearly of the frustration felt by SSPCA leaders called out due to animal welfare concerns. Seeing illegal activity and they can't record it or even intervene on it, Police Scotland doesn't have the resources to police wildlife crime to any extent, let alone to the extent of providing a deterrent. However, there are concerns about empowering a third sector organisation to provide law enforcement, and those concerns relate to setting a precedent that allows a third sector organisation to carry out police investigations. There are concerns about training governance, independence, resources both financially and physically, and staffing. Amendment 82 looks to leave out section A to A reflecting some concerns that members had. Therefore, I believe that my amendment tries to find some middle ground. I listened to the minister at stage 2 when he suggested that one year would not be long enough to review the process. Therefore, my amendment ensures that those powers will be reviewed after five years and that the findings of that review would be laid before the Scottish Parliament. That will give the Scottish Government the opportunity to review the extent that those powers are being used, whether the courts accept the standard of evidence provided and whether they should continue. Edward Mountain's amendment 81 asks that the Scottish ministers must regulate training of officers so empowered. I am sure that that is wise because surely it should be the police that train the officers in evidence gathering and techniques, and that will change from time to time, so having to regulate at every turn would be counterproductive for those officers. That should be left to the police to ensure that their skills are up to date. I warmly welcome the inclusion of new powers for the SSPCA to help tackle wildlife crime in this bill. I thank those who have been working on it and building up the evidence base over the past 13 years. Many of those people are here tonight joining us in the public gallery. It is testament to them that this case has been won through and is now in legislation. During those 13 years, we have seen disgraceful wildlife crimes go unpunished in Scotland. The reason why they have gone unpunished is because of the inability of the police to gather evidence to secure successful prosecutions. With welfare inspectors, they have had their hands tied when called to the scene of wildlife crimes. I am sure that many members will be familiar with cases where inspectors are called to a live animal court, for example, in an illegal trap, only to then find themselves unable to gather evidence of other illegally set traps nearby. Often, given that such crimes occur in remote areas, the evidence has disappeared by the time that Police Scotland officers can reach the scene, sometimes days later. SSP officers have an important role to play in ensuring that evidence of wildlife crime can be included in an official police investigation and potential prosecution. I have been calling for an extension to the SSPCA powers for a number of years. I called in the last session of Parliament for a Government task force to review the existing powers. Upon entering the Government, green MSPs ensured that the task force would report back in time to allow its recommendations to be taken forward in the legislation. That is exactly what the legislation does. It sets up a proportionate way on SSPCA powers, not replicating the work of the police but enhancing the work of the police. The SSPCA does a fantastic job at present, but its extension of powers enables it to fill the gap in the existing law, aiding the police and their investigation of wildlife crime offences. I would say to members opposite. If there are any doubts about the absolute professionalism of the SSPCA, I urge them to go out with an SSPCA inspector, see them at work, see how they discharge their responsibilities. If they do that, they will see that the powers are proportionate and the SSPCA is a professional body. I look forward to them discharging the new powers in Scotland. I urge all members to reject every amendment in this group. I would like to address each of the amendments in this group. I would like to make two points about the decision to extend the powers of the Scottish SPCA inspectors to investigate specified wildlife crimes. Firstly, as Mark Ruskell said, this is not a new issue. It is something that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have been considering and debating for over a decade. It was first proposed that the Scottish SPCA be given new powers to tackle wildlife crime during the parliamentary discussion on the wildlife and natural environment bill in 2011. During the passage of the animal and wildlife penalty protections and powers bill in the last Parliament, the then Minister for Rural Affairs and Natural Environment, Mary Gougeon, announced the formation of a task force to consider the role of the SSPCA in relation to the investigation of wildlife crime. My second point is in regard to the appropriateness of those powers. The SSPCA is one of over 50 agencies other than Police Scotland who report cases to the Crown Office each year as a specialist reporting agency. They already have the power to investigate any animal welfare case and to submit those cases directly to the Crown Office. They do it every day and that includes the investigation of unnecessary suffering against wild animals. I will say that again. The Scottish SPCA already investigates wildlife crime in cases where the wild animal is found alive. That could be cases such as badger-baiting, hit or hen harriers, cotton spring traps and I will take your intervention. Police Scotland has objected to those powers and cited that there could be potential for wildlife crime investigations to be compromised. I would like him to comment on that, but Mark Ruskell said that the extension of the SSPCA powers was because of the SNP-Green coalition in the Bute House agreement. Is that true? The additional powers in the bill just mean that, when authorised inspectors are investigating those cases where they already have the power to investigate, they can collect evidence in relation to other wildlife crime offences. For example, if they are responding to a live hen harrier that has been caught in their spring traps, they would also be able to pick up the illegal traps sitting next to it. That is something that they could not do before. What those powers are not doing, however, is letting them respond to any new offences offences that they could not already respond to. It is not about allowing them to take on more cases, it is just about allowing them to collect more evidence when they are doing what they already do. I appreciate the minister for taking intervention. Can you first put it on record my respect that I have for Mike Flynn and the other members of the SSPCA in the work that they do in preventing cruelty to animals? However, does the minister think that it is appropriate for the SSPCA to express their personal opinions on issues such as mureburn, which I believe they have done today in an interview with the ITV border, which is certainly not impartial? Should the public not expect a higher degree and the minister, indeed, a higher degree of impartiality given their future potential role? I cannot comment on something that I have not seen, but in terms of the relationship that I apologize for, I did not answer Rachael Hamilton's question. In relation to the relationship between the police and the SSPCA, I welcome to it. Amendment 81 would require that a Scottish and SSPCA inspector using those extra powers must be trained before being authorised to do so. It also includes an enabling power to make regulations relating to approved training courses. That amendment is unnecessary, as I have just said. SSPCA inspectors have been effectively carrying out their existing functions under the Animal Health and Wealth of Scotland Act 2006 without a specific requirement for them to undergo training being set out in primary legislation. As a specialist reporting agency, the SSPCA already has to follow Crown Office's guide for specialist reporting agencies and the disclosure of evidence guidance. Those guides provide important safeguards and training around how evidence is collected, corroboration, timeliness of submission of a case to the Crown Office, and care over the identification of individuals identified in cases as the perpetrator. Any additional training that may be required to undertake the additional functions will be set out in the Police Scotland SSPCA working protocol that will be developed prior to the provisions coming into force. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 81, and I encourage members to vote against it. The effect of amendment 82 is that no additional powers will be confirmed on the SSPCA inspectors under the Animal Health and Wealth of Scotland Act 2006. Those powers were voted into the bill at stage 2 and have been widely supported. The 2023 consultation received over 500 responses, and 71 per cent of those respondents agreed with those proposals. I cannot therefore support amendment 82, and I encourage members to vote against that. Amendment 17 creates a new requirement to review the SSPCA powers after five years. I understand where Ms Grant is coming from, and I agree with the need to review those provisions. However, I do not believe that the review requirement as proposed by Ms Grant is necessary. With regard to reporting on offence and prosecutions, there is already a statutory review requirement in section 26B of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for Scottish ministers to lay a report before Parliament on the annual incidents and prosecution of wildlife offences. We do this every year. It is called the Wildlife Crime in Scotland annual report, and it includes a section dedicated to the Scottish SSPCA's investigation of wildlife crime, and it is broken down by wildlife crime priority areas, how many cases are reported to the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service, and how many are solely investigated by the SSPCA, and how many are led by Police Scotland. Amendment 17 will require a duplication of that effort every five years. With regard to a wider review on the operation of the Scottish SSPCA powers, Eleanor Whitham has lodged an amendment to require a review of the operation and effectiveness of the bill, which includes the extension of the SSPCA powers. I therefore will believe, and I hope that Ms Grant agrees with me, that between the existing statutory review and the one proposed by Ms Whitham that amendment 17 is unnecessary, I would therefore ask her not to press her amendment, and if it is pressed, I would encourage members to vote against it. Thank you. I now call on Edward Mountain to wind up presser withdrawal amendment 81. Mr Mountain. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I have been interested in listening to this debate. I would just say to Mr Ruskell, who made comments about whether we, on this side of the chamber, believe the SSPCA do a good job or not. I have no doubt they do a good job. I see them at the mart and I see them looking at farmers, and I absolutely have respect with the way they go about their duty, and I have respect with the way they do it in a gentle approach in most cases, in a non-accusatory role, in a role of trying to find a solution. This is not what they are being asked to do here. This is a very, very different circumstance, and you are putting them on the front line. Therefore, I think that it is dangerous, and I think that it could bring them into conflict. What I would say is that I am surprised that the Minister does not believe that they need to go on a course. Not really, everyone else has to, but not them, because they are already trained. The fact that keepers and land managers have been on courses seems to matter now. I will be interested, and I am just going to remind the members of my register of interest that I am part of a family farming partnership. I suspect— Mr Stewart, could we not have the interventions when we are standing in your position? Mr Mountain, could you continue, please? I mentioned that because for two reasons. One is that I suspect under the new agricultural Bill I am going to be sent to do continual professional development on how to be a farmer, having been doing it for 40 years. Maybe not, but maybe I am, but I will have to do a course, but the people who are being appointed inspectors won't. As far as the Minister's comments in relation to Rhoda Grant's request, it is a reasonable request to do it once every five years, not a great difficulty. Let's get on and be reasonable. Let's get them doing courses. Let's get us a report on what's going on. Thank you. I move the amendment in my name, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 81 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Parliament's not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their votes now. And the vote is now closed. Point of order, Alex Rowley. Thanks, Presiding Officer, or they voted no. Thank you, Mr Rowley. I'll make sure that is recorded. And the result of the vote on amendment number 81 in the name of Edward Mountain is yes, 33, no, 78. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 82 in the name of Rachel Hamilton, already debated with amendment 81. Rachel Hamilton, to move or not move. I think that the question is that amendment 82 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Parliament's not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their votes now. And the vote is now closed. I'll make a point of order. They voted no. Thank you, Mr Rowley. I'll make sure that vote is recorded. Point of order, Craig Hoy. Sorry, thank you, Presiding Officer. My app's playing up. I've been voted yes. Thank you, Mr Hoy. I'll make sure that is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment number 82 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 30, no, 79. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 17 in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 81. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move. Not moved. Moved. We therefore move to group 9, Muirburn requirement for licence and purposes. I call amendment 18 in the name of the minister group with amendments 83, 1984, 85, 20, 102 and 108. Minister to move amendment 18 and speak to all amendments in the group. Minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will speak to my amendments in the group first and listen to what the other members say on their amendments before I respond. We've heard throughout the progression of the bill the importance of Muirburn practitioners going through training to ensure that they are conducting Muirburn in line with best practice. Amendment 18 clarifies the defence for those taking part in such training. It makes clear that a person making Muirburn during a training course does not commit an offence so long as the land is subject to a Muirburn licence and I encourage members to support it. Amendment 19 adds a purpose to the list of purposes for which Muirburn on non-peatlands may be made. At the course of the bill's passage through Parliament, we have heard extensively about the dangers of wildfire, how devastating it can be to people and communities to protect the species and to the wider environment that we are trying to protect. I have heard first-hand the accounts of gamekeepers who, through their management of the land, work to prevent wildfire and who often miss their life when one breaks out. I would like to place on record my grateful thanks for them for doing so. The bill has always included provisions to allow a Muirburn licence anywhere for the purpose of preventing wildfires but at stage 2 there were some very useful discussions about why it would be helpful to have a provision on this stated explicitly in the face of the bill. I want Muirburn practitioners to be under no doubt that the Scottish Government understands that when undertaken appropriately with caution and planning, Muirburn is a useful tool to prevent and reduce the risk of wildfire. Amendment 19 will also aid in understanding to what extent Muirburn is used to prevent and mitigate wildfire as we will be able to collect data on how the number and location of licence is issued for this purpose. For those reasons, I encourage members to support amendment 19. I move amendment 18. I now call on Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 83 and other amendments in the group. I remind people what I just said about my register of interests because as an interest as a farmer, which I have managed grassland and heathland, it is relevant in this section because I am seeking to make a split between Muirburn and burning of heath, which is in my mind totally different. I would remind members if they want to just have a look that the definition of Muirburn is intentional and controlled burning of moorland vegetation to encourage new growth, either heather or grassland, for the management of moorland game and wildlife or for the improving the grazing potential of moorland for livestock or deer. So, what I am trying to do in these amendments is to take heath out of this because there will be some areas of heath that are burnt. Those of you that have travelled from Edinburgh to Perth have seen on the right about halfway between two, there is that big area of broom and gorse that has been burnt and that is quite natural to try and remove it because it is very difficult to spread and even if you cut it, it will then come back. So burning offers a valuable tool. So what I have tried to do in these amendments 83 is to split the difference between Muirburn, meaning heather, from heath, which is scrub, which means it has not grown necessarily on acidic soils. I think there is a huge damage within this bill for overreach. I have not yet heard a definition which may convince me as a farmer that I wouldn't end up being able to burn areas, say, of grassland, which may be damaged by leather jacket and be killed off, eaten off, and the only reasonable way to deal with that rather than spray it, which is pretty invasive and the helpful, is to burn it and then reseed patches of it. This bill could make that impossible and that slightly concerns me with that. I think we should also amendment 84, acknowledge that Muirburn is not just about improving land for game, it's improving land for wildlife as well and game can produce more wildlife and we all know that eagles predate on hares and peregrins predate on grass and therefore increasing stocks of both are good for our predators. Therefore we shouldn't be frightened about allowing burning. I support the amendments of Mr Fairle, sorry amendment 18, about finding who can burn, but I think amendment 19 needs to go further to include wildlife in game. I think amendments 85 seems common sense and I'm unclear about amendment 20 but I listened to wait to hear that. This is a chance, a one-off chance, to make sure that this doesn't overreach from Heather into lowland farm management when it comes to burning. Thank you and I call Rachel Hamilton to speak to amendment 85 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I also put on record my thanks to land managers and game keepers for putting their lives on the line to help the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in the events of wildfires such as Canock that we saw last year, which would have been much more devastating if they hadn't put their lives on the line and used their experience. The minister will be aware that there have been some concerns raised over inconsistency with respect to licensable purposes. I'm pleased to see the minister bring forward amendment 19, which addresses one of the issues highlighted by stakeholders in respect of ensuring that preventing or reducing the risk of wildfire on non-Petland habitats is a standalone licensable purpose as it is for peatland habits, notwithstanding Edward Mountain's comments about this amendment. I also support my colleague Edward Mountain's practical amendments 83 and 84. I'm moving to amendment 85 in my name, which seeks to address inconsistency across licensable purposes, which I feel needs rectified. In its current form, the bill enables the making of mereburn on peatland to restore the natural environment. This is at odds with a similar but broader licensable purpose for non-Petland habitats, which enables mereburn to be made to conserve, restore, enhance and manage the natural environment. Ministers have not provided any substantive rationale for differentiating in this way. I'm advised that there is a considerable body of scientific evidence that suggests that mereburn does have conservative, restorative and environmental enhancement, but looking at the example that we got from Dr Andreas Heinmeier, the peatland es UK study, we heard from him a number of cross-party colleagues in an event recently in the Parliament, and that study suggests that mereburn plays a role in retaining and enhancing the wetness of peatland habitats by reducing the extent to which evapotranspiration takes place, which is a combination of evaporation and transpiration. Similarly, it perperts that mereburn can be conservative and restorative by reducing the extent to which methane is produced, while simultaneously locking up more carbon and providing more nutrients. Given the long-term and rigorous nature of this research, I do not think that ministers can credibly say that mereburn does not have those properties, particularly the conservation properties, the restorative properties and the enhancement value for peatland. For that reason, I hope that members across the chamber will be minded to support my amendment 85 in my name. Thank you, and I now call Roda Grant to speak to amendment 20 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My amendment 26 to put in place a super-affirmative process for laying regulations to modify the purposes for mereburn under section 10.5. It will ensure that any regulations that modify the lists of purposes for mereburn are subject to fuller consultation and scrutiny by a committee of this Parliament. It was clear when we took evidence that the science around mereburn is not clear that well-managed peatland can tolerate mereburn without any harm to the peat. However, degraded peatland can be damaged badly, and it is clear that wildfires were devastating to both peat and the natural environment, while releasing a large amount of carbon into the atmosphere. We saw that in Carnach recently. When a fuel load is left in the moors, the risk of wildfire is raised and climate change also creates that risk of wildfire. We need to monitor the use of mereburn going forward as a tool, but also as a risk. Therefore, we need to be able to modify the purposes for which it can be used. That said, such changes need consultation and scrutiny, and that is what my amendment 26 provides for. I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, but I listened carefully to what the minister said about the time that he proposed. The amendment has changed the period in which the regulations are laid to 60 days. Half of that was previously asked for, and I hope that that will now meet with the Government approval. I invite the minister to wind up. Amendments 83, 102 and 105 change the definition of land for mereburn from Moorland and Heath to just Moorland. The definition of mereburn in this bill has been taken from the 1946 Hill Farming Act and this definition has been fit for purpose for nearly 80 years. Changing the definition of mereburn to remove Heath is completely unnecessary. I would remove Heathland from any of the bill's provisions, including the requirement for training. Therefore, I encourage members to vote against that amendment. Amendments 84, 84 to allow mereburn to be undertaken in peatland to manage habitats for game birds and other wildlife does not take into account the value of Scotland's peatland. That amendment was lodged at stage 2 and was voted against then for good reason. As I set out stage 2, the purposes currently listed in the bill for undertaking mereburn on peatland are limited in recognition of the risk of serious and significant carbon emissions when burning either damages the peat or interferes with the natural carbon sequestration process that occurs on functioning peatland. The bill seeks to balance the potential damage to peatland from mereburn carried out incorrectly against the damage to peatland that may result from wildfires. That means that the process of undertaking any mereburn on peatland needs to be much more thoughtful and only to be undertaken in limited circumstances. I believe that allowing mereburn on peatland to manage habitats for game birds and other wildlife cannot be justified against the risk of damage to that peatland. I would encourage members to vote against amendment 84 on this basis. Amendment 89 adds the terms conserving and enhancing the natural environment to the purposes for mereburn on peatland. The current provision allows for just restoring the natural environment. As I explained about Edward Mountain's amendments, the provisions for mereburn on peatland are about reaching a balanced position. The increased purposes for undertaking mereburn proposed by amendment 85 are broader terms than just restoring and therefore will open the scope of when mereburn can take place on peatland. For example, conserving the natural environment may allow mereburn on peatland to conserve it as moreland for the benefit of game birds. I think we can all agree that that would not be appropriate. It would put the wheat and peatlands at unnecessary risk and it would not allow a line with our commitments to address the climate change. Our peatlands have suffered decades of poor management and are a precious resource in our fight against climate change and I would encourage members to vote against amendment 58 on that basis. I would point out at this stage, Presiding Officer, that we have two million hectares of peatland in Scotland and it is estimated that 75 per cent of it is degraded. Amendment 20 is unnecessary. As I have previously mentioned today, when similar amendment was brought forward at stage 2, there are established procedures in place for laying affirmative Scottish statutory instruments, which include laying the Scottish statutory instrument and draft before Parliament for normally the 54 days. That will give Parliament the opportunity to consider the draft instrument and take the evidence and vote on it. It is the correct procedure for any such amending instrument and both the delegated powers and law reform committee of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee agreed with that approach in their stage 1 reports. In addition, the bill already contains a requirement to consult before making regulations to change the purposes for which Muirburn may be carried out under licence. Adding a further requirement, as described in Rhoda Grant's amendment, would substantially delay the making of regulations needed to introduce urgent further protections for peatland, Muirburn or similar. I would encourage members to vote against amendment 20 on that basis. Thank you minister. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are agreed. I call amendment 83 in the name of Edward Mountain. Already debated with amendment 18. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Move, Presiding Officer. The question is that amendment 83 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament's not agreed. There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Michael Marra. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My app didn't connect. Have we voted no? I'll make sure that vote is recorded. Point of order, Keith Brown. Sorry, point of order, Keith Brown. Apologies, my app wouldn't be fresh. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Brown. I'll make sure that that is recorded. Point of order, Claire Adamson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. My app wouldn't connect. I would have voted no. Thank you, Mr Adamson. I'll make sure that that is recorded. The result of the vote on amendment 83 in the name of Edward Mountain is, yes, 13, no, 82. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 19 in the name of the minister. Already debated with amendment 18. Minister, to move formally. Move, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is agreed. I call amendment 84 in the name of Edward Mountain. Already debated with amendment 18. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 84 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. And the vote is now closed. Point of order, Claire Adamson. Sorry, Presiding Officer. I've travelled with my app disconnecting again. I would have voted no. I can tell you, Ms Adamson, that your vote was indeed recorded. Thank you. The result of the vote on amendment 84 in the name of Edward Mountain is, yes, 13, no, 83. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 85 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated with amendment 18. Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Question is that amendment 85 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a vote and members should cast their votes now. And the vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 85 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is, yes, 31, no, 83. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 20 in the name of Rhoda Grant. Already debated with amendment 18, Rhoda Grant to move or not move. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their votes now. And the vote is now closed. And the result of the vote on amendment number 20 in the name of Rhoda Grant is, yes, 50, no, 64. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. We move to group 10, Muirburn licences, grants and conditions. I call amendment 86 in the name of Emma Harper. Grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings, I'd point out that if amendment 89 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 90 due to a preemption. I call on Emma Harper to move amendment 86 and speak to all the other amendments in the group. Miss Harper. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Time is getting on, so I will not be speaking too long. The need for a Muirburn season is well understood and was set out in the hill farming act of 1946. It ensures that Muirburn is only carried out when the risk of economic, social and environmental damage is at a minimum. For example, the Muirburn season ends in spring to ensure that protected ground nesting birds are not disturbed during their breeding season. There are different permitted reasons for carrying out Muirburn. Just give me a wee second to finish this thought, please, at 1903. There are different permitted reasons for carrying out Muirburn depending on whether this is on peatland and whether or not this is carried out during the Muirburn season, and I will give way to Mr Carson. I thank the member for giving away. It is a reference to Nature Conservation, but can the member quantify the impact that she alluded to in respect of Muirburn on Merlin? I do not really understand what whatever meant, Presiding Officer, but I am sure that the member and all members will agree on the principle of minimising the risk of economic, social and environmental damage to our peatland areas and our grouse areas. Licences will be granted with appropriately in season and only granted outside of the season if that is satisfied by the licence and authority that is absolutely necessary to do so. Section 11 of the bill already restricts when the Scottish ministers or Nature's Scott is if the function is delegated to them, can grant a Muirburn licence, and my amendments 86 alongside 88 and 89 add further restrictions. I would mean that a Muirburn licence cannot be granted to burn on non-peatland out with the Muirburn season for the purpose of managing the habitats of Moorland game or wildlife or for the purpose of improving the grazing potential of Moorland for livestock. My amendments also mean, however, that a licence can be granted to burn on non-peatland out with the season for the purpose of conserving, restoring, enhancing or managing the natural environment, preventing or reducing the risk of wildfires and for research, but only if it is considered necessary to do so, as I have just mentioned. That is in line with the principle of minimising the risk of economic, social and environmental damage and reflects what is currently set out in the 1946 act. I believe that there are important safeguards to ensure that this bill operates as intended and I move amendment 86, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Ms Harper. I call Rachel Hamilton to speak to amendment 87 and other amendments in the group. Ms Hamilton. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To Finlay Carson's intervention to Emma Harper, it is just important that, for the reference that she made regarding Muirburn, we do not understand what she means by the impact that it may have environmentally to the species such as the Merlin, and that was the crux of the question. I would ask the same thing if she could address that in her closing. Amendment 87 is as previous. It serves the same purpose as I debated amendments 49 and 61 in my name, and it creates a rebuttable presumption in favour of granting licences and changing the word from made to must, provide prospective licence applicants and stakeholders with greater certainty. Thank you. Thank you, Ms Hamilton. I call Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 90 and other amendments in the group. Good news, Presiding Officer. I am not going to move amendment 92 for the simple reason that, having looked at the rationale behind it, I have been taken advice and I am conscious and pleased to understand that it is not the Government's intention to issue Muirburn licences for set periods of time. My concern was that they were going to, and that a Muirburn procedure for an area of grant may be for a long period of time, and we will come on to the reasons of Muirburn and how you carried out and why you carried out later on in this, but it is a rotational basis and eight years would be the minimum in my mind, but as they haven't set a target length, I don't propose to move it. As far as amendments 90 and 91, to me, they were consequential amendments to an earlier amendment of mine that failed, and so I have no wish to push them, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Mountain. I call Alasdair Allan to speak to amendment 21 and other amendments in the group. Dr Allan. Thank you. The requirement for Muirburn practitioners to be trained was widely discussed and indeed widely supported at stages 1 and 2. There was near universal agreement from stakeholders that due to the risks and the potential for widespread damage when Muirburn is not done correctly, that anyone involved should be trained. Notwithstanding Mr Mountain's stated scepticism about all forms of training in general, I do understand that it was anticipated that being suitably trained would always be a requirement of the Muirburn licence. However, my amendment 21 sets out this expectation on the face of the bill by making it a condition of every Muirburn licence. I believe that it is reasonable to set out this condition so that Muirburn licence holders understand what is expected of them and, in turn, make it easier to comply with the legislation. Thank you, Dr Allan. I call the minister to speak to amendment 22 and other amendments in the group. I apologise, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendments 86, 88 and 89 are all amendments that were brought forward by Kate Forbes at stage 2, and I asked her not to press them, so I am very happy to see them come back in the name of Emma Harper. She sets out amendments 86, 88 and 89 make it clear that a licence must not be granted out with the Muirburn season for certain purposes and for other purposes and should only be granted outside the Muirburn season if it is necessary to do so. As I have said throughout this process, I recognise the importance of Muirburn in preventing wildfires and that purpose alongside other limited purposes continue to be allowed under licence outside the Muirburn season through those amendments, so I encourage members to support those amendments. In coming back to the point that Finlay Carson and Rachael Hamilton have both just made, the protection of Merlin is about where they nest and being caught up in fires, but I think he was a bit late in coming in in that grouping. Amendment 87 inserts that the licence and authority on receiving an application that meets the requirements in section 10 must grant a Muirburn licence rather than may grant a Muirburn licence. As a public body, NatureScotter required to act reasonably and will be granting Muirburn licence where it is appropriate to do so. However, I recognise that some would like increased assurance that they would be granted a licence if they meet the eligibility criteria, which the bill makes extensive provision for, and I am happy to support that amendment. Edward Mountain's amendments 1990 and 1991 taken together restrict the purposes for which Muirburn can be carried out during the season. Those amendments only allow a licence to be granted during the Muirburn season for managing of habitats of Moorland game or wildlife or for improving the grazing potential of Moorland for livestock. I am not sure if this was Edward Mountain's intention, but this is completely at odds with everything that he has been discussed throughout this bill, and I am glad that he is not going to press them. Amendment 90 inserts a condition to require that a Muirburn licence must be for eight years and can only be shorter if deemed appropriate for environmental reasons. As I said at stage two, when Edward Mountain posed a similar amendment, our climate is changing continually, as we have all witnessed in the past year, and we need the ability to respond to that. That changing climate and weather has also resulted in more wildfires, including on peatland. That amendment would therefore defeat one of the core purposes of this bill to allow us to regulate and control in a much more orderly fashion the making of Muirburn. The current provisions also allow NatureScot to the flexibility to issue licences for periods of time thought appropriate in the individual circumstances, and they will be granting licences based on a burning plan, and I expect that some applicants will submit longer-term burning plans and that NatureScot will be approving them. However, for other applicants, a long-term plan may be quite onerous and therefore this amendment would be working against them. Again, I am glad that he is not going to press that amendment. As Alasdraalm has set out amendment 21 makes it clear to applicants what is expected of them, the requirement for an individual involved in making Muirburn to undergo training is an area that has near unanimous agreement. I will therefore be supporting this amendment and encourage members to vote in favour of it. Amendment 22 is a technical amendment. It simply corrects a typo in section 13A1 of the bill by replacing the word receive with receiving. To ensure clarity in the wording of the bill, I would encourage members to support this amendment as well. Amendment 23 inserts that any fee payable in connection with a Muirburn training course is reasonable. As a public body, NatureScot is required to act reasonably, which includes in relation to fees. However, having listened closely to what was said at stage 2, the amendment looks to provide reassurance that those making Muirburn will not be expected to pay unreasonable fees to undertake a Muirburn training course. For this reason, I encourage members to support that amendment.  Apologies for not picking up what the essence of Mr Carson's first intervention was, but Rachel Hamilton did help clarify and so did the minister. My understanding is that Maryland breed on grouse mures and sometimes when Muirburn is carried out that can affect those birds and their ability to survive, so I won't re-rehears what I said and move my amendments. I'm just glad to hear that the minister agrees with the reasons for bringing forward the amendments and I will move them in my name. Thank you. Thank you, Ms Harper. The question is that amendment 86 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 87 in the name of Rachel Hamilton. Already debated both amendment 86 and Rachel Hamilton to move or not move. Thank you, Ms Hamilton. The question is that amendment 87 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are all agreed. No, the Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and I would ask members to cast their vote now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 87 in the name of Rachel Hamilton is yes, 90, no, 21. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I call amendment 88 in the name of Emma Harper. Already debated with amendment 86. Emma Harper to move or not move. The question is that amendment 88 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is agreed. I call amendment 89 in the name of Emma Harper. Already debated with amendment 86. I remind members that if amendment 89 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 90 by way of preemption. Emma Harper to move or not move. Thank you, Ms Harper. The question is that amendment 89 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is agreed. I therefore now call amendment 91 in the name of Edward Mountain. Already debated with amendment 86. For the record, could Mr Mountain clarify whether he is moving or not moving. I now call amendment 92 in the name of Edward Mountain. Already debated with amendment 86. Again, for clarity, Mr Mountain, is Mr Mountain moving or not moving. I now call, apologies, amendment 21 in the name of Alasdair Allan. Already debated with amendment 86. Alasdair Allan to move or not move. Thank you, Dr Allan. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is agreed. We now turn to group 11. I call amendment 93 in the name of Edward Mountain, grouped with amendments 96 and 101. I call on Edward Mountain to move amendment 93 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Mr Mountain. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. This is my attempt to move the Government and NatureScot into the 21st century by establishing a register of licences, which in my mind should be done online. It should allow people to interrogate that register and the register should include a name and description of the land where the licence that has been granted applies. It will be up to Scottish Ministers to determine the form and manner of the register to be kept, but it must be accessible online at all times. It seems fairly straightforward and it seems fairly open. My amendment also allows for public inspection. The other thing that this does is allow us to move away from why the Government is trying to stick to that every time somebody wants to do a bit of mule burn, they have to place an advert in the local paper. 500 quid every time you go into the local paper. I think it was actually the Government during Covid that kept many of the local papers going by paying for the adverts, but when it comes to other areas where this was required, under the crofting legislation, which Dr Allan would know all about, crofters objected to and still object to the adverts having to be placed into local papers because of the expense involved. That is what one of my amendments will try and avoid. This is about literally establishing a register, making it available to the public, allowing the public to interrogate it and to keep cost down for all involved. I am not sure what is not to like about it, but I am sure there will be something. As I said, when Edward Mountain brought forward nearly identical amendments at stage 2, I am sympathetic to the intentions behind them. I agree that transparency is important, not just in the way that these licences will operate, but for all the licences operated by Nature Scotland. That is why, under the Butehouse agreement, we have made the commitment to review the wider species licensing systems and the introduction of a public register of licences to improve transparency, bearing in mind the data protection and safety of licence holders. That review is now well under way, and I think it would be better to wait for it to conclude to allow the Scottish ministers to consider all the options around creating a register or registers that could potentially cover a range of licences. That would seem more appropriate, rather than providing here for a register only in respect of Muirburn licences granted under this bill. It would also allow the Scottish Government to fully consider the GDPR implications of creating a public register. For those reasons, I hope that Edward Mountain will not press his amendments, and if he does, I would encourage members to vote against him.  Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. There is a surprise that the Minister is not for an open register that can be openly interrogated by the public and that people can see what has actually been offered as far as licences is concerned. I am at a loss truthfully at this stage, Presiding Officer, to understand why the Government is not prepared to embrace it, saying that nothing today but there may be something tomorrow. I do move the amendment in my name, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Mountain. The question is that amendment 93 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 93, in the name of Edward Mountain, is yes, 51. No, 61. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 22, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 86. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is agreed. I call amendment 23, in the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 86. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is agreed. We now move to group 12 on Muirburn code. I call amendment 24, in the name of Rhoda Grant, grouped with amendments 25, 26, 94, 95 and 28. I point out that if amendment 26 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 94 and 95 by way of a preemption. I call on Rhoda Grant to move amendment 24 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Ms Grant. Currently, the Muirburn code does not have to be laid before Parliament. At stage 2, I brought forward amendments to scrutinise the code under a superaffirmative procedure. However, that was rejected by Government. I believe that all significant delegated powers should be properly scrutinised. Therefore, my amendment 26 inserts a procedure mirroring the Government's process for agreeing the dear management code of practice. That means that ministers must approve Scottish natural heritage or NatureScot. It is a code that is laid before Parliament under the negative procedure. Amendment 28 removes the code from the provisions that ministers can delegate to NatureScot, as that would not be appropriate, given that they would develop the new procedure. Amendments 24 and 25 are consequential to 26, in place of initial responsibility for preparing and reviewing the Muirburn code with NatureScot instead of Scottish ministers. This is a process that the Scottish Government has used before, and I therefore hope that it can accept it. Thank you, Ms Grant. Could you please move the amendment? Can I move amendment 24, please? Thank you, Ms Grant. I call on Alice Rowland to speak to amendment 94 and other amendments in the group. Dr Rowland. The bill currently sets out the people interested in or affected by the making of Muirburn will be consulted when the Muirburn code is being prepared or reviewed. In practice, that would probably also include when it is being revised, but, for the avoidance of doubt, my amendment 94 sets it out clearly on the face of the bill. Thank you, Dr Allan. I now call on Edward Mountain to speak to amendment 95 and other amendments in the group. Mr Mountain. Thank you, Presiding Officer. So many papers on my desk, so many amendments, and I'll get to the right one. I'll get to one, hopefully, that the Government will allow. Amendment 95 is to ensure that the Government consult with land managers, something that I've been asking all along for them to do. It's a simple amendment to allow land managers to have an input into this code, but I suspect that that's not appropriate, but I wait to hear the answers, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Mountain. I don't, in fact, now see any other member that wishes to speak, so I will now call the minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I cannot support road of grants amendments 24, 25, 26 and 28. Those amendments remove the ability for Scottish ministers to delegate the preparation of the Muirburn code to NatureScot and requires that NatureScot be responsible for it and the Scottish ministers instead must approve it. The amendments also state that the code must be laid before the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament can determine that the code should not come into effect. However, the provisions do not provide any insight or direction on what would happen if the Scottish Parliament determined that the updated code should not come into effect. Alongside that, I believe that, if passed, those changes would create an unnecessary additional burden that would actually slow down the process of updating the Muirburn code considerably. As I've set out in response to a similar amendment from road of grants at stage 2, that is meant to be a practical working document that provides up-to-date guidance for licence holders and it is not clear to me what laying the Muirburn code before Parliament will achieve. The Muirburn code will be published on the NatureScot website and we will, of course, ensure that Parliament is kept updated of the processes of the development when it is published. Those amendments will create an unnecessary statutory requirement for what is meant to be active up-to-date guidance. While I can understand the intent for the first updated version of the code following the bill, it really would not make practical sense to put every future iteration to respond to circumstances and, in some cases, to do so nimbly and flexibly through such a statutory process. For all those reasons, I encourage members to vote against those amendments. As stated by Alasdair Allan, amendment 94 clarifies that, when the Muirburn code is being revised, people interested or affected by the making of Muirburn will be consulted. I think that we can all agree that it is a sensible amendment and I encourage members to vote for it in favour of those amendments. Amendment 95 reflects that the consultation and the development of the Muirburn code must include those that are involved in land management. I know that NatureScot is working with a wide range of stakeholders on the development of the codes included in this bill, and I am hoping to join one of the working group sessions, so I encourage members to vote in favour of this amendment, much to Mr Mountain's surprise, I would imagine. I call on Rhoda Grant to wind up a depress or withdraw amendment 24. I may be disappointed, but not totally surprised that the minister has rejected this, but his criticism of my amendment, which mirrors the dear management code of practice procedure, is amazing and startling that the Government has legislated and now criticises its own legislation, so I will be pressing my amendment. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division and members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 24 in the name of Rhoda Grant is yes, 50, no, 62. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 25, in the name of Rhoda Grant, ready debated with amendment 24. I ask Rhoda Grant whether she is moving or not moving. I now call amendment 26, in the name of Rhoda Grant, already debated with amendment 24, and I remind members that, if amendment 26 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 94 or 95 by way of preemption. I now call amendment 94, in the name of Alasdair Allan, already debated with amendment 24. Alasdair Allan, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 94 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is agreed. I call amendment 95, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 24. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is, therefore, agreed. I now call amendment 96, in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 93. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. Thank you, Mr Mountain. The question is that amendment 96 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. Therefore, there will be a division and members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 96, in the name of Edward Mountain, is yes, 50, no, 62. There were no abstentions. The amendment is, therefore, not agreed. We now move to group 13 on Muirburn season. I call amendment 97, in the name of Edward Mountain, grouped with amendments 98, 99, 100 and 27. I call on Edward Mountain to move amendment 97 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. About two weeks ago, my wife asked me what we were going to do for my 63rd birthday, and I said, well, you can do what you want, but tonight I'm going to be talking about something really important, or that night I'm going to talk about something really important in the Scottish Parliament, and that's the Muirburn bill. So here I am talking about this, and I might get one more than one vote. So here I am this evening, and what I want to talk about, if I may, under this section is the fact that how Scotland is so very different. It is different from one end of Scotland to the other, and I think that was the point that I tried to make during the stage 2 amendments, and what happened was that that was not accepted, and Scotland was considered to be the same. I tried to explain that the warmth heads from the south north, and that, as things warm up in the borders, things could still be cold north. In fact, it can be much more local than that. In the low-lying hills around Tomantow, it can be positively warm at an altitude of 1,000 foot, but if you go further up into the hills, up into Glenarn, for example, at 1,800 foot, it can still be cold and covered in snow. That's why having a season, and a bland season that covers the whole of Scotland, is wrong. That's why I am suggesting that there needs to be amendments to allow Muirburn to be carried out out with a set to find period. And, fully enough, I seem to remember the Minister at stage 1 actually arguing that point as well. He seems to have changed his tune since he became a minister. I'm not quite sure why that's happened. No doubt he will enlighten us. So amendment 97 is to give the chance for the minister to extend, the Scottish Government to extend the period of Muirburn to the 15th of April. Of course, not just on a whim, but on the approval of the experts that we've heard about earlier, Scottish Natural Heritage. So that gives a little bit of flexibility. So if, for example, as we had not many years ago, where all of the high hills are covered in snow right up until early April, that you could burn once that snow had lifted because you couldn't guarantee it would be clear in March. Now, I've listened to the arguments that were put forward by organisations and RSPB to name one, say that the breeding season has come earlier. I'm pretty sure that there's not many birds that breed in snow and they don't lay their eggs as the snow is melting. They will wait a bit of time before they move into that habitat. So by extending the season by a mere 15 days with the approval of SNH seems to be appropriate, amendment 98 is to take into account annual variations in weather conditions, and particularly geographical areas. Some years I will be planting in the Murray Firth as early as the middle of February. Other years it can be late as the middle of April. It depends on what rain we've had, what conditions we've had, and you can't make the same decision every year. What I know is that eventually things will dry out and I will get a chance to carry out the operations that we needed, and that's what we need to allow keepers to do, and that's why we need the flexibility. The next part of our amendment 99 is when we're taking this is to include land managers in this whole process and make sure they're consulted. Amendment 100 I feel sure will reach the Minister for the simple reason what it is doing is giving the scope for SNH to suggest to the Minister that the season could be extended for up to 20 days. That gives the Minister time to consider whether that's relevant, and as we've heard before they are the experts, and the Government only have to have regard to this, they don't have to do it, but if they don't do it they have to explain why. That seems to me a situation where everyone is co-operating together and working together and working in the difficult conditions that is the Scottish climate, and at different levels of Scotland it is different. I spoke to somebody the other day who said that they'd seen their first osprey, won't be for at least another 20 days, probably nearer a month, that we see the first ones back with us at home just because of the different climate conditions. That's what these amendments are trying to bring out, that Scotland's not all the same, that we are diverse, our country's diverse, and therefore we need flexibility within what could be just a very rigid plan. That's why, Presiding Officer, I'm moving these amendments in my name and I look to the Parliament to support them. Thank you, Mr Mountain. I now call on Rhoda Grant to speak to amendment 27 and other amendments in the group. Ms Grant. My amendment 27 ensures that any changes to the mereburn season are properly scrutinised. As with other amendments, I listened to the minister at stage 2 and amended the length of time those regulations be laid. Those powers are required because climate change is already impacting on bird nesting seasons and this is likely to continue. Therefore, we may need to change the mereburn season timing. However, that must be consulted on and laid before Parliament to ensure that the changes are necessary and that there are no unintended consequences. It's difficult to understand why the minister is so averse to this kind of scrutiny and you'd almost believe that he believes that the Government will be in power forever. Thank you, Ms Grant. I now call the minister. Presiding Officer, amendment 97 would allow the mereburn season to be extended to 15 April with the permission of NatureScot. At stage 2, we had very good reason to bring forward the mereburn season to protect ground nesting birds and the bill was amended to that effect. To then accept an amendment that pushes the season back to the middle of April, albeit in limited circumstances, it would not be appropriate nor good practice. However, I do understand that the science around mereburn is constantly evolving and that the impacts of climate change mean that we may need to adapt our approach in the future. That's why Scottish ministers already have a power in section 16 of the bill to amend the mereburn season if they thought it necessary or expedient to do so for the purposes of conserving, restoring or enhancing the natural environment, preventing the risk of wildfire or in relation to climate change. The benefit of being in government to answer Edward Mountain's question is that you get access to much more information, including the stats like the 2 million hectares of peatland that we have, 75 per cent of which is degraded, but as I've already said, NatureScot has provision to extend if it's deemed necessary to do so for the powers that I've just talked about. Importantly, this power is subject to the affirmative procedure giving Parliament an enhanced scrutiny role and there is a requirement to consult those likely to be interested in or affected by the making of mereburn, ensuring that this power would be used proportionately. Amendment 97 provides no such scrutiny. For those reasons, I cannot support this amendment and if pressed, I would encourage members to vote against it. Amendment 98 would change the regulation power in section 16 so that if Scottish ministers want to amend the mereburn season dates through secondary legislation for the purpose of preventing or reducing the risk of wildfires causing harm to people who are damaged to property, they would need to take into account annual variations in weather conditions in particular geographic areas. This amendment is unnecessary because the bill already sets out that the power to change the mereburn season dates can make different provisions for different purposes, including for different land and for different years. That would naturally take into account the weather conditions across the land. The bill therefore already provides the ability for regulations to provide different mereburn season dates depending on the weather conditions and geography, which could, for example, include land that is or is not at a higher risk of wildfire. I therefore do not think that this amendment is necessary. I cannot support this amendment and I encourage members to vote against it. I would like to say that I was pleased to work with Mr Mountain on amendment 99, but he never actually came to see me despite the fact that every other member who I dealt with having amendments that have been agreed so far did. I really do not mind if you want to throw stones at me, but the point that I would make to you, the reason why I did not come and see you, Mr Fairlie, is that I happened to be in Australia for my son's wedding. If you begrudge me going to my son's wedding, then so be it. I thought that you were bigger. Mr Mountain, I absolutely take on board that you may have been out of the country. However, you have said on various occasions throughout this debate that you have not had the ability to talk to me and you have not had the ability to make these recommendations. However, you have an amendment 99, which I will be happy to support. Amendment 100 will allow NatureScot to recommend that mereburn season is extended by up to 20 days and that Scottish ministers must either do so or give reasons why not. As I have just explained, the power to change the mereburn season dates by regulation already includes a requirement to consult NatureScot, as well as those interested in or affected by mereburn. NatureScot is an executive non-departmental public body, which is an organisation that carries out administrative, commercial, executive or regulatory functions on behalf of the Scottish Government. They are not, however, part of the Scottish Government or the Scottish Administration. While NatureScot provides essential advice to the Scottish ministers, as an unelected body, it is not their role to set the direction of policy, which is what the recommendation on amendment 100 would be in effect. I cannot support this amendment and encourage members to vote against it. As I have said for the other similar amendments lodged by Ms Grant, amendment 27 adds unnecessary additional burden on Scottish Parliament when there are already established procedures in place for changes through secondary legislation. Any regulations to change the mereburn season would be subject to the affirmative procedure under which the instrument will be laid in draft before Parliament for normally 54 days. That will give Parliament the opportunity to consider the draft instrument and take evidence and then vote on it. That is the correct procedure for any such amendment instrument, and both the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee agreed with that approach in their stage 1 reports. If passed, this amendment could lead to unnecessary delays in changing the date of the mereburn season, which could have consequences for the natural environment. I have listened very carefully to what Rhoda Grant said today and during stage 2 when she brought forward those similar amendments. However, I do not believe that she has made the compelling case to support why any future use of those enabling powers should be subject to greater scrutiny or why the standard parliamentary process for considering an instrument would not be sufficient. I will therefore not be supporting this amendment and I will encourage members not to support it either. Dispointed that the minister keeps going back to a figure of 75% of Scotland's peatland being degraded. It may be before his time. I certainly remember when grants were being made by the Scottish Office in those days to train peatlands with grips. Yes, we have learned a lot by then, but it is not all down to the way in which moreland has been managed for wildlife. In fact, we know from a fact that wet moreland is probably better for grouse and wildlife than dry moreland, but it was the Scottish Office that encouraged us to degrade the peatland, and that is why there is so much degraded peatland. I would also point out that no, I do not accept the minister's point about amendments 97 and 98. I believe Scotland is very different. I believe that parts of it are very different, and therefore coming up with a general code. Yes, I accept that the minister will accept amendment 99. It was an amendment that he asked me to lodge, and I was happy to do it. As far as amendment 100 is concerned, I do not believe that there is anything wrong with giving SNH the powers to apply to ministers to extend the season. It shows that all the powers, not with the Government, is with some of their agencies who can be approached by the managers on the ground. I move the amendment to my name. Mr Mountain, the question is that amendment 97 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. Would have voted no. The result of the vote on amendment 97 in the name of Edward Mountain is yes, 47. No, 66. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. Amendment 98, in the name of Edward Mountain, is already debated with amendment 97. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 98 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 98, in the name of Edward Mountain, is yes, 51. No, 62. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I now call amendment 99, in the name of Edward Mountain, is already debated with amendment 97. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 99 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is agreed. I now call amendment 100, in the name of Edward Mountain. I now call amendment 100, in the name of Edward Mountain, is already debated with amendment 97. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. In the spirit of co-operation, moved. The question is that amendment 100 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 100, in the name of Edward Mountain, is yes, 47. No, 66. There were no abstentions, and therefore the amendment is not agreed. I call amendment 27, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is already debated with amendment 97. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 27, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is yes, 51. No, 62. There were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 101, in the name of Edward Mountain, is already debated with amendment 93. Edward Mountain, to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 101 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their vote now. I will call that vote again. The question is that amendment 101 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 101, in the name of Edward Mountain, is yes, 51. No, 62. There were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 28, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is already debated with amendment 24. Rhoda Grant, to move or not move? Not moved. Not moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 102, in the name of Edward Mountain, is already debated with amendment 18. Edward Mountain, to move or not move? Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 102 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their vote now. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment number 102, in the name of Edward Mountain, is yes, 30. No, 83. There were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore not agreed. We will now move to group 14, definition of peat and peatland. I call amendment 103, in the name of Edward Mountain, grouped with amendments 104, 106, 107, 108 and 109. I remind members that amendments 103 and 104 are direct alternatives, that is to say that they can both be moved and decided upon, but the text of whichever is the last agreed to is what will appear in the bill. I call on Edward Mountain to move amendment 103 and to speak to all amendments in the group. Mr Mountain. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I move amendment 103 in my name. This has been an interesting debate on this particular subject about peat depth, and I find it quite interesting because I think it's shown up a great deal of misinformation, and that is that shallow peat is better for burning on than deeper peat. As a generalisation, of course, it's entirely wrong. It depends on the peat, the shist below it, and the peat depth actually can get much thinner as you go higher up the hill. So if you get to 1800 foot, the peat depth may be quite short, quite thin, sorry, and the regrowth period for heather on that will be extremely slow. In fact, it will be wind clip. So the thought of burning on higher bits of the hill, certainly 1900 feet or above, absolutely should be a no-no, despite the fact that this bill says that it would be fine because the peat is shallow enough. That is why this figure is just so arbitrary. Now, I started off in amendments at stage 2 suggesting a deeper depth than the one I'm suggesting today. I have brought the depth back, but I've done it to do it to encourage debate on this subject, because it's not the peat that you're actually burning. It's the matter on top of the peat that you're burning, and those of you people that have been out and taken time to go out and seen me or burned taking place will know there's a great difference in how you burn bits of hill and the speed that fires pass over it. In fact, I remember an area in Caithness where I was involved in burning a bit of hill where it actually got away from us, got out of control, and went through a relatively newly planted woodland. The speed of the fire through that, because it was through grassland, was such it didn't damage the trees funnily enough, didn't damage the fence posts or the fence around it. In fact, it moved through so quickly there was no damage at all, and what was interesting to know is that the trees group brass are afterwards because they weren't crowded out by vegetation. So the point of my amendment is to try and force the debate on this. I'll be interested to hear why Colin believes that going into an even shallower depth will be the way forward, whereas on the shallow depth you'll probably end up with just pioneer and pager climax vegetation, i.e., short vegetation, rather than the climax vegetation, the old rank heather, which you're trying to get rid of, to stimulate regrowth and to encourage birds to use that area and mammals to use that area. So I could talk for hours on this, Presiding Officer. It's late into the evening, and I'm sure that everyone's looking forward to going home. I will just leave it there and make a summation of the points that I hear at the end. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Mountain. There's a bit of too many conversations going on, and members' backs shouldn't be turned to the chair. Thank you. I now call Colin Smyth to speak to amendment 104 and other amendments in the group. Mr Smith. Thank you, Presiding Officer. One of the key aims of the Bill is to protect the peatlands by limiting burning on them. So the definition of what is peatland does matter. The Bill, as it stands, places that definition on the face of the Bill and it states in a quote, land where the soil has a layer of peat with a thickness of more than 40 centimetres. The consequence of this definition is that extensive areas of shallow peat, of a depth less than 40 centimetres, will be treated as not peatland, even though they are functionally part of a peatland and are often the most vulnerable areas. If we are to have depth in the definition and if that is to be on the face of the Bill, I believe that the scientific evidence points the need for a reduction to 30 centimetres, which is an internationally recognised level and it would offer more protection. A 30 centimetre peat depth is a definition used in the peatland code and in the UK peatland strategy and Natural England will be applying that to common standards monitoring. Scottish Forestry also have recognised the importance of limiting damaging practices in peat and are not accepting any forestry grant scheme applications, which include ploughing on soils where peat depth exceeds 10 centimetres. Lowering the depth to 30 centimetres, as proposed in my amendment, would have the effect of increasing the area of land that is treated as peatland under the terms of the Bill and so include some of the shallower peatland areas which are themselves important large carbon store. The Government's approach is to set that depth level at 40 centimetres. That has almost universal opposition, it has no scientific basis for it and it is entirely arbitrary, an international outlier that seems to be based on little more than splitting the difference between 50 centimetres and 30 centimetres. The member used the word arbitrary. Would he come to the conclusion, though, that 30 also sounds fairly arbitrary? Secondly, that any bill is only as good as its ability to be enforced and for a practitioner having to measure to a degree of centimetres is extremely difficult. The first point that I would make is that there is absolute international precedent for 30 centimetres. That is not the case for 40 centimetres. Secondly, Kate Forbes Government is proposing a level of 40 centimetres. That needs to be measured as well, so if there are difficulties with 30 centimetres, there are equally difficulties when it comes to the measurement of 40 centimetres. However, the 40 centimetre figure is, frankly, the equivalent of making policy on the basis of tossing a coin. It is, frankly, simply splitting the difference and there is no scientific basis for that. That level at 40 centimetres, in my view, is a backward step, but lowering the depth to 30 centimetres would improve the protection of peatlands at a time when we need to be doing everything we can to protect and restore those important areas. We know that the bill allows ministers to amend the definition by regulation, which they would have to consult with NatureScot and others on. However, as it stands, there is no requirement for them to do so on a regular basis. If the minister is adamant that the Government wishes to stick to the arbitrary 40 centimetre figure, amendments 106, 107, 108 and 109 would, at the very least, require a regular review of the definitions of peat and peatland at the very most every five years, take it into account relevant scientific expertise. Therefore, I hope that, at the very least, if the minister, as it seems, is not minded to take a more scientific approach to the setting of peat depth in this bill, he will at the very least commit to having a regular review of that definition. I have sympathy with the amendments from Colin Smyth, and I thank him for following up on the debate on this issue, which was had at stage 2. As committee members know, we heard evidence from stakeholders, including IUCN's international peatland programme, that the whole issue of defining peat based on depth is arbitrary. It is a definition that stems entirely from policy developed immediately after World War II, when Britain was concerned with mapping and maximising its use of domestic natural resources. It is not related to our current problems of reducing our impact on the climate and reversing the decline of nature. However, right now, the evidence base is not strong enough, and it is good to hear assurance from the minister this evening that the matter will be reconsidered as the evidence base develops and how the Government will support research to improve our understanding of peatland ecosystems and how to protect them. I am keen to put on my record my support for amendment 103 in the name of Edward Mountain, my colleague. It is worth stating at the outset that we do not support using a below ground metric peat depth to regulate an above ground activity near burn. The approach is illogical and at odds with the evidence that we received from practitioners and experts on the topic. If peat depth is going to be used, we would support defining peatland as where the peat is deeper than 50 centimetres. There is a very important reason for that. There is a national peat depth survey data available at the 50 centimetre threshold. Such data could be instrumental in informing which areas constitute peatland and which areas constitute non-peatland, making things easier for both practitioners and the regulator. The importance of this data has been recognised elsewhere, too. The then Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ensured that such data was available before implementing the heather and grass burning regulations, which impose similar requirements on designated sites. For that reason, we support retaining the 50 centimetre depth. I also have significant concerns about Colin Smyth's amendments in this group. It is clear that the intention here is to render the making of Murrburn as difficult as possible for practitioners without properly understanding the interactions between Murrburn and peatland. If Colin Smyth took the time to familiarise himself with the long-term science set up to deal with this complex issue, he would understand that there is no scientific basis for the position that he is adopting in respect of 30 centimetres. I am concerned that his other amendments 106 and 109 are being pushed with a view to leveraging such a change to 30 centimetres in five years. If it is my requirement to look at the scientific evidence, why is Rachel Hamilton running scared from having a regular review every five years that takes into account that scientific evidence? Presumably, she is doing so because she knows her argument for 50 centimetres has no scientific basis for it whatsoever, so why is she scared of having a review every five years to put that to the attest rather than simply leaving it at 40 centimetres, which is the case as the bill stands at the moment? What is wrong with the review? The proposal that Colin Smyth has made has absolutely no scientific basis. The point that I am making, Colin Smyth, is that there is already national peak depth survey data available at the 50 centimetre threshold. Kate Forbes, when she intervened, is absolutely correct that the use of an arbitrary peatland depth lacks scientific reasoning since peatland is not burned down by Muirburn and, furthermore, it is impractical for land managers to be expected to measure peak depth across the land as part of a licensing regime. I can tell you that this one has been a doozy. Amendments 103, 104 offer alternatives to what the definition of peak should be for the purposes of Muirburn licences. I want to thank Colin Smyth and Edward Mountain for laying these amendments, which has allowed us to have this debate in the chamber today. The approach taken in the bill in line with the wider Muirburn provisions follows the precautionary principle and the depth of 40 centimetres arose from that principle. Amendments 103 and 104 demonstrate that there are opposing views as to what the definition of peatland should be as it was seen throughout this passage of the bill. Some would like it to be shallower, some would like it to be deeper. That still leads me to conclude that 40 centimetres is the correct definition to use in relation to the potential risks associated with Muirburn licences on peatland. The public consultation on the definition of peatland was similar and divided. 38 per cent of respondents thought that it should be 40 centimetres, but those who disagreed with 40 centimetres were split between wanting to keep it at 50 centimetres and others arguing that it should be 30 centimetres or less. As noted at stage 2, 40 centimetres is also the depth that is being moved to in England. However, in recognition of the divergence of views and to ensure that the definition keeps peth with scientific research, the bill allows Scottish ministers to amend the definition of peatland by regulations. That must be done in consultation with Nature Scott and any other person they consider likely to be interested in or affected by making Muirburn. Any regulations developed to amend those definitions would therefore be subject to consultation and also enhanced parliamentary scrutiny, as they will be subject to the affirmative procedure. I therefore hope that amendments 103 and 104 are not pressed and that they are. I urge members to vote against them. Amendment 106, 107, 108 and 109 in the name of Colin Smyth require Scottish ministers to review the peat depth every five years. They also require that when undertaking the review, Scottish ministers must consult with Nature Scott and individuals or organisations with relevant scientific expertise. I wholeheartedly agree with the underlying principle for this amendment. There is still significant scientific development happening in this area. The Scottish Government has been clear that if new evidence emerges, there are different approaches required. It will reconsider the definition of peat used in the bill. However, the bill did not include a statutory review period by which such a review should be undertaken in the bill. That is because the Scottish Government believes that the timing of any future review should be informed by the latest scientific developments and publication of any new and relevant scientific research. I consider that that is the correct approach to take, rather than one that is proposed by the amendment, which would simply tie future reviews to an arbitrary five-year cycle. I take your amendment. Colin Smyth. I accept that what the amendment says is that within five years it can be reviewed at any time that scientific evidence comes forward. It does not have to wait for five years. It does not accept that there is a concern that there is a ability of ministers to change the depth by regulation, but there is not a requirement to do so. My amendment would put that requirement on ministers to do so, and it could be at any time within that five-year period. Presiding Officer, our landscape is changing, and we are going to get better at understanding the science by the procedures involved in the licensing scheme that we have brought forward. We can use that data to better regulate as necessary, which is why we are committed to reviewing the bill in its entirety, as will be seen in the amendment that will come forward with Eleanor Wittam later on. I therefore ask members to vote against Mr Smyth's amendment 106, 107, 108 and 109. Thank you, and I call Edward Mountain to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 103. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Yes, that was an interesting debate, where we, I think, worked out that the depth of the peat was almost an arbitrary figure, and somebody had drawn it out of a hat to come up with a figure that seemed to be right.  So it is totally arbitrary, it is not scientifically based. What I would say to you and to this Parliament that Muleburn is all about doing it in rotational system, and you work out if you're managing a bit of hill how much Muleburn is required. Some hills can stand Muleburn every four to five years and will be completely regrown in that period. Other bits will take significantly longer. Other bits that are higher ground will take significantly longer as well. It's not all about peat depth, actually. It's as much about weather conditions, the way the slope face, and the overall facility of the peat and the shist below it. All of that adds up to how quickly the vegetation grows. I truly believe that my figure is the right figure, so much of the Minister's probably anoints. I'm going to push it, not to the surprise of Colin Smyth. His other amendments, I think, are Colin Smyth's amendments, are interesting, but this time I'm going to agree with the Minister. I don't think they're needed in the bill. I think that they're going to be covered elsewhere, so maybe on that happy note, Presiding Officer, I can sit down having moved the amendment in my name. Thank you. I remind members that amendments 103 and 104 are direct alternatives, and the text of whichever is the last agreed to is what will appear in the bill. So the question is that amendment 103 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their votes now. Bear with us a moment. We are aware that there is a technical hitch. Thank you, colleagues. I'm going to call that vote again. The question is that amendment 103 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We're not agreed. There will be a division, and I can ask members to cast their votes now. The vote is closed. I call Sue Webber for a point of order. I actually cancelled the point of order before, when I thought there was an issue, which has now been resolved, and I managed to vote successfully. Thank you, Ms Webber. I can confirm that your vote has been recorded. I call Claire Adamson for a point of order. I was in the same position, Presiding Officer. I believe that my vote has been cast. Thank you, Ms Adamson. I can confirm that your vote has been recorded. The long-awaited result of the vote on amendment 103 in the name of Edward Mountain is, yes, 33, no, 80. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 104 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 103. Colin Smyth to move or not move. The question is that amendment 104 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 104 in the name of Colin Smyth is, yes, 17, no, 95. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 105 in the name of Edward Mountain, already debated with amendment 18. Edward Mountain to move or not move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 105 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 105 in the name of Edward Mountain is, yes, 28, no, 83. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 106 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 103. Colin Smyth to move or not move. The question is that amendment 106 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The result of the vote on amendment 106 in the name of Colin Smyth is, yes, 17, no, 96. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. I call amendment 107 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 103. Colin Smyth to move or not move. Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 108 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 103. Colin Smyth to move or not move. Not moved. Thank you. I call amendment 109 in the name of Colin Smyth, already debated with amendment 103. Colin Smyth, to move or not move. Thank you, Mr Smyth. I call amendments 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated, and I invite the minister to move amendments 29 to 35 on block. I move the unblock, Presiding Officer. Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 29 to 35? We are all content. If no member objects, the question then is that amendments 29 to 35 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Thank you. We now move to group 15, review of act provisions, and I call amendment 110 in the name of Eleanor Whitham in a group on its own. Eleanor Whitham, to speak to and move amendment 110. Thank you, Presiding Officer. At stage 2 of the bell, there was much discussion on the importance of ensuring that the provisions in the bell do what they set out to do, and I believe that this is only natural, giving that this is a landmark bell for animal welfare and wildlife protection. This bell extends the powers of the Scottish SPCA inspectors to investigate wildlife crimes. It bans the use of snares and glue traps, and it puts into place new regulation on wildlife trapping, grouse shooting and mure burn. Throughout the bell's passage through the Parliament, there have been some concerns raised about the effect of the new provisions and how they will be used, particularly in relation to the impact of the mure burn provisions on mitigating wildfires and on the extension of powers to Scottish SPCA officers. I therefore echo Emma Harper's earlier comments when she spoke to amendment 76 that regular monitoring is essential to assess the bell's effectiveness. My amendment 110 adds the statutory requirement to review and report on the operation and effectiveness of the provisions in the bell within five years of it receiving royal assent. It sets out that the review must in particular consider the parts of the bell relating to glue traps, to snares, to Scottish SPCA inspectors and to mure burn. It also sets out that Scottish ministers must prepare and publish a report of the review and lay that report before Parliament. I believe that the review would facilitate the Scottish Government's commitment to an open and transparent approach to legislation, and I also think that the review will help to allay some of the concerns that have been expressed by members of the Parliament today. I would welcome the minister's comments on this important amendment to review and report on the operation of the bell. This amendment also ensures that the Scottish SPCA powers are reviewed as I had tried to do in my previous amendment. We need to evaluate third sector organisations' involvement in detecting crime and gathering evidence. My concern is not about the Scottish SPCA themselves. They do a wonderful job, but my concern is about the precedent that is set, so I welcome this amendment and hope that those powers will be reviewed. I hope that review will make sure that other third sector organisations are not involved in crime detection or prosecution. This bill has been a long time in coming, and it introduces some fundamental changes to wildlife management and grouse mure practices. I believe that they are the right changes. It is important that, when new legislation is passed, the Scottish Government should continue to monitor the impact that it has to ensure that it is working in the way that it was intended. I therefore want to thank Eleanor Whitton for bringing forward this amendment, which I think is a very helpful addition to the bill. I hope that the requirement to undertake a review of the provision in the bill will help to allay some of the concerns that have been raised about the effect of the new powers in this bill and how they will be used. I also want to point out right now, Presiding Officer, there is a video today of a man called D-Ward up in Rottle estate who does an amazing job on an upland estate while he manages to do commercial business at the same time as conserving wildlife, restoring peatland and doing all the things that we want to do in this bill, and he is an exemplar of how that is being done. I hope that this bill is the start of so many other estates doing exactly the same thing. I will therefore be voting for this amendment and I encourage all members to support it. I am pleased to hear that the minister agrees with my reasons for bringing forward amendment 110, and that he will support it. I urge parliamentary colleagues to do the same, and I will press my amendment. The question is that amendment 110 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is agreed. I call amendment 36. In the name of the minister, already debated with amendment 38, minister, to move. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. The point of order, Shona Robison. I was not able to connect. I would have voted yes. The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. There will be a division, and members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Point of order, Shona Robison. I was not able to connect. I would have voted yes. Thank you. We will ensure that that is recorded. Point of order, Fulton MacGregor. The same issue. I cannot connect. I would have voted yes. The result of the vote on amendment 37, in the name of Eleanor Whitham, is yes, 85, no 28. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. I would like to advise the chamber that the result on amendment 82 was yes, 30, no 80. There were no abstentions, not yes, 30, no 79 and no abstentions. As previously advised, the amendment was not agreed to. That ends consideration of amendments. There are no questions to be put as a result of today's business, so that concludes decision time and I close this meeting.