 Merhebeth yw ddigon nhw i gyfodol, a'r 19 ddau i bedwyr y ddweud yw 2017 o'i cadw o hwnnw, gwyddoch chi i'w fwyaf cyhoeddaeth i gyd, rwyf ni'n ddigon nhw i'n fwyaf oedd unrhywm yn ei gofynedd ymddilliau. Ión cyhoeddaeth i gynnig o'r ffordd fod yn ddweud ond, Fulton Magr Greger a Gael Ross. Rhyw gyrthu'n i gydziadau hwnnw sy'n rei gyfan o fewn, gan oedden nhw i ddweud y ddweud yng ngyllgen o'r parlyffan o'r 10 m利 o hyg. Felly, o'r cymdeithasio y Llyfrgellau Cymru, rwy'n ganddwyd o'r ffordd y Llyfrgellau Cymru, y Llyfrgellau Cymru a Llyfrgellau Cymru. Rwy'n ganddwyd y Llyfrgellau Cymru. Carol Barker Munro, lcymdeithasio y Llyfrgellau Cymru, Ginny Gardner, yng nghymddig o ddeuffwylwyr, Catherine Murdoff, ynghylch yn ynghymddig y Llyfrgellau Cymdeithasio, Gemma McAllister, Cylista, Joe Ahara, ynghymddig o ddeuffwyr y Llyfrgellau Cymru, and Simon Hodge, ynghigbeithig ysgol hyd athef o ffordd y Dynwylliannol. Rydyn ni'n arddangos iawn hefyd, ac yn ei buddail'r panel. Rydyn ni'n arddangos iawn a'i gaelpletiaeth ar y byddau, ac yn gweithio i'r rai cyfrifodol i gweithio i'r ddaf. Rydyn ni wedi'u bod yn rai chi oedd amddangos iawn a'r ddaf i'r ddaf o gwirionedd a'r ddaf o gwirionedd yn arweithio gefnogi fawr? wrth greadim g skeletaethau mwy ajared tro bwysig y tu, coff smoke diwrnodr amlŷdd a roeddaeth dwi gźdd oippedol. Mae cais i gwerth o gwy train目 Every Ground toWhat o'i wneud ddeallu gwaith fel gêmwag? Felly gw pumpysg retainainnig mor gwendaloedd three themes. The one that's particularly relevant to the bill is the legislation and regulation element of that, and we haven't dropped anything that was in the consultation from what's gone into the bill, so there was a commitment on sustainable forest management, a long-term commitment to forestry and a commitment that the details of regulation would be taken out of primary legislation and put into secondary legislation. They were the main points under legislation and regulation and they are still in the bill. If I can just say a little bit more about the other two elements. We also made proposals for organisational structures. They are not in the bill because our proposals are to bring the structures into the Scottish Government. That makes them have the same legal identity as Scottish ministers and therefore we don't need to have an identity for the public bodies in the bill. The other element is on cross-border arrangements and their subject negotiation with our colleagues in the UK and Welsh Government. We will require a Scotland Act order to set them up, but again we don't need anything in the legislation. OK. What is in the bill that wasn't consulted on and how did you subsequently consult on that and get feedback? As the spice briefing alludes to, we didn't specifically mention a forestry strategy in the consultation. We did mention a long-term commitment to forestry in the course of our discussions with stakeholders. There were some concerns that short-term political timeframes would affect the long-term commitment to forestry and we sought to allay those concerns by including a statutory duty to prepare a forestry strategy. It is in line with feedback that we received from the responses. OK. What was the most controversial issue in the consultation? What received the most feedback? I suppose that some things would have received a lot of feedback and support, but what appeared most controversial? The proposals on organisational structures, we had a yes, no question on that. The majority of organisations supported the proposals. The majority of individuals did not support those proposals. The main issues that they fed back on was a concern about loss of expertise and skills. The Scottish ministers believed that our proposals for organisational structures deal with that issue. We have made a commitment that all members of staff from Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland will transfer to the Scottish Government and that the local office network will be retained. Therefore, the local engagement and knowledge that already exists will be retained. The other issue that people spoke about was separating. We are wanting to keep Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland on making them a single body. The Scottish ministers already see them as separate bodies with separate functions. Keeping them separate also responds to feedback that we had from stakeholders about separating the regulator, which is the Forestry Commission Scotland elements now, and the regulator, which is the Forest Enterprise Scotland element. I understand what you are saying about expertise. On day one, the expertise will be exactly the same, but how do you continue that expertise going forward as part of government? How do you continue not making sure that foresters are in a position of influence within the Scottish Government of civil servants move around? There are two elements to that. The first is that there are already a lot of specialists within the Scottish Government. It is quite normal to have groups of specialists with continuing professional development and procurement specialists, lawyers such as GEMMA and accountants on that side of things. It is not unusual to have a group of specialists within the Scottish Government. I do not think that that would change. The second thing is that we recognise the importance of skills and we have a commitment to retain that within the Scottish Government. Thank you very much. We will move on to the next theme, which is going to be led by John Mason. I wanted to look at part 2 of the bill and the whole question of forestry functions and forestry strategy. First, can you tell us if the functions are moving from the forestry commissioners to the ministers, are those functions the same or are they different in any way? They are different in that they are modernised. Forestry commissioners at the moment have functions that have been layered up over time since the 1967 act. In bringing them to Scottish ministers, the opportunity has been taken to put a main general duty on Scottish ministers for sustainable forest management, which recognises the inherent balance within forestry and links to sustainable development of economic, social and environmental objectives. That is a different type of duty, but it is still a principal duty on Scottish ministers to promote forestry and to take account of the various outcomes that forestry can contribute to. The second duty, the duty to prepare a forestry strategy, is a new duty. There is a forestry strategy at the moment, prepared by the Forestry Commission, but there is no statutory requirement to do that, so that would be a new duty on Scottish ministers. In part 2, those are the main two duties that will be placed on Scottish ministers. If we leave the strategy for a minute and I will come back to that in our next question, but in practice, will we see much difference? When you say modernised, is it just more a question of modern language and a bit more up-to-date? I personally would say that it is more modern language and up-to-date. Sustainable forest management is a very well recognised internationally known concept that is supported by both the sector and the industry and the environmental sector. It is what happens at the moment. It is underpinned by the UK forestry standard, which is how you demonstrate that you are meeting it. It is new language. You would not see big practical differences then. We would not expect to see big practical differences. The policy is not that you would see big practical differences. The difference is that it acknowledges the multiple rules that forestry can bring, rather than having a series of little bespoke duties that, over time, have layered up and are quite difficult to negotiate and navigate sometimes. You have a broader duty that, at the outset, recognises the multiple benefits that can be brought. You mentioned a strategy that, at present, as I understand it, there is a strategy but it is not actually required by statute. We are now going to have the situation where a strategy is required by statute. If it is there already, why do we need to put it in statute? The policy to have a strategy in statute is that it requires ministers to have a forestry strategy to recognise the importance that forestry brings. It connects back to your colleague Rhoda Grant's question. How do you retain skills and staff within the Scottish Government? If you have a statutory requirement for a strategy, you must have policy outcomes that you are looking to gain from forestry. Therefore, you need the staff within the Scottish Government to deliver those, so it is putting forestry front and centre among ministers' objectives and recognises the importance to the sector? I just wanted to come in, if I may. When I was looking at the bill, I noticed that the strategy will have to balance economic development and environmental enhancement. It just says that it has to balance. Could you explain to me how you see that balance being achieved? Sometimes there will have to be a compromise on both. There is already a balancing objective that the Forestry Commission has to meet in terms of balancing the three pillars anyway, so it is something that already happens in terms of the strategy. I do not know—can I bring Jo? I mean, Jo, definitely come in. The thing is that it is in the bill. It does not say that there is going to be three pillars and it does not say that that is going to happen. It just says that it has to be balanced. Jo, perhaps you could explain that a bit more. The principle of sustainable forest management is about bringing the social environment and economic together. It is well understood amongst the forestry profession and globally. We have been working with this, as Carol said, with the UK Forestry Standard and also with the existing forest strategy. That is exactly why it was introduced. I would also endorse what Carol said about the current duty. The original 67 act was about productive forestry and, over the years, other balancing duties have been brought in. Basically, the legislation is catching up with what modern forestry practices, which, be it at a site level, a regional level or a national level, is balancing all of these different objectives that forestry can deliver. I think that this is part of the modernisation agenda. It is the language of the legislation catching up with where modern forestry has got to. Simon To pick up on the point about how does it actually work in practice, consultation is a large part of this in terms of consultation on the Scottish Forest Strategy, consultation on strategic directions for the national forest estate, consultation on individual parts of the estate or individual forestry proposals. It is through that consultation process that the nitty-gritty of what that balance appropriately looks like in each case is worked through. I am just going to bring Jamie in and then come back to Jonathan. The language that has been used is about modernisation of forestry management. Does anyone in the panel have any fundamental concern that the fact that many of those functions are moving from Forestry Commission Scotland, which is in effect a public body, civil service role and fairly independent, is moving to being under the responsibility of Scottish ministers and ministers by default are political appointments? Is there any concern anywhere at all that this move is not just about modernisation but may have any detrimental effect to the independence that Forestry Commission Scotland currently has? Farring lab. I am not sure that Scottish ministers would necessarily recognise the independence that you are talking about in terms of Forestry Commission. They are civil servants, as you say. They work very closely with the Scottish Government. Joe and Simon, on a day-to-day basis, are part of the senior management team of the directorate that we all work in. In practical terms, Forestry Commission Scotland and Forestry Enterprise Scotland already operate as if they were part of the Scottish Government. My final question back to the strategy was given that we already have a strategy and there is going to be a requirement in the bill for a strategy. Can we just slot the existing strategy in or would there be changes that would have to be made or would it fit or could it not fit? No legal impediment to adopting the existing strategy. However, the existing strategy is now quite old and the land use strategy, which is current, contains a commitment to review the Forestry strategy, but there is no legal impediment to doing so. That is great. Thanks so much. Thank you. The next theme is Stewart's. Thank you, convener. I think that this is probably fairly brief. The policy memorandum says that plant health will now be in one place, but in relation to the Plant Variety and Seeds Act 1964, it is not clear to me whether it actually encompasses duties that are there related to the sale of plants and seeds in particular, so perhaps if you could clarify that for us. I will cover that. The Seeds Act, to give it its shortest name, is currently not really used for forest or silvicultural reproductive materials to any great extent. We are transferring those functions to ministers, but we do not expect to change on the ground if that was the point of your question. All the functions in the Plant Health Act will transfer to ministers, and all the functions in the Seeds Act that are currently carved out for the commissioners will transfer back to ministers. However, in terms of how they are used, we do not see immediate change. I suppose that I am just making a rather simple point that they all will touch on the health of our plants. While forestry is one thing, there can be vectors for diseases, fungi and all sorts of things that can adverse health events that can happen in forestry that could be derived from plants and seeds. I just want some assurance that it is all going to work together in a way that serves the needs of all the different parts of the system. Currently, most of the action that is taken to protect plants across the UK is through the Plant Health Act. The import of seeds, for example, is governed by that. The Seeds Act is more about bringing things to market. The protection from the threat of plant diseases is dealt with under the Plant Health Act, so that will now all be with Scottish ministers. Everything is in one place. John Finch-East, you are going to get on the next session. Thank you, convener. I have some questions on management and, indeed, management to further sustainable development. The bill states that the Scottish ministers must manage land in a way that promotes sustainable forest management. It sets out the meaning of forestry land. Can you provide further clarity on two points, please? One of them is section 10B, which refers to, and I quote here, other land that the Scottish ministers manage for the purpose of exercising their functions under section 9. Other land that Scottish ministers might manage for the purpose of exercising their function could be any land that is not the national forest estate. Scottish ministers currently own the national forest estate, and it is managed by Simon and his team. Scottish ministers, however, own other land, which could be used for a variety of different purposes, and it enables that land for the purposes of its management to be brought within the remit of the act, so that sustainable forest management might apply should they wish to plant trees on that land. The other category of land that it would refer to is land that it manages under section 14 of the bill, which would belong to someone else, which it manages on a contractual basis, on behalf of another person. That was my second point about section 14. How does that differ from the present arrangement, or is that consistent with the present arrangement? In terms of forestry land, it is consistent with the present arrangement. Forest Enterprise Scotland already manages land on behalf of other people. I am sure that Simon would be happy to tell you a little bit more about that, but it just provides the legislative underpinning for that to happen. The provision enables a land management service but also a land advice service, and those are two functions that Forest Enterprise Scotland already undertake. I can add to that briefly. The current Forestry Act basically pins the entire management of the national forest state to forestry and forestry purposes. As the years have gone on, there has been a desire to see us involved with a delivery across a wider set of objectives, particularly because one third of the estate, some 200,000 hectares, is currently not forestry land, it is other land. As we have been using our skills sets to develop agendas in terms of linking with communities, in terms of wider habitat management, in terms of agriculture and new entrants, for example, we have currently had to peg all of those in some way to forestry. The bill provides the opportunity to recognise the value that this other land can also deliver for purposes other than forestry purposes. I do not want to cut across your bowels. I would mind asking a question on this, but if you have more in the section, please lead on. No, I was going to move on to another one if you want to come in. Okay. It is just a question because I cannot quite see how this all panned out, because it seems to me that land that the Government owned that is not part of the national forest estate now becomes part of the national forest estate. So, to clarify my mind, if up in the Kangorns they owned a chunk of land, would the management of that land fall under this act? Would Craig Mackey fall under this act? Would they still stay with SNH, or would they become part of the forest estate? No, under the bill the only way to add to the national forest estate is to purchase land for the purposes of forestry, and then it would automatically be added to the national forest estate. The bill does not automatically add any other land that Scottish ministers own as the national forest estate, so it retains that status. Okay, so land that is owned at the moment does not fall naturally into the national forest estate and that only land purchased or acquired for forestry falls within the management of that? After the bill is enacted, yes. The way to add to the national forest estate would be to purchase land for that, and then it will become part of the national forest estate, but it does not automatically bring the rest of Scottish ministers' land holdings, or, indeed, any other public sector land holdings, within what is defined as the national forest estate. Thank you. Sorry, I was a wee bit confused. Sorry, John to cut across your back. No, no, Tom. Hold on. I think that Peter wants to come in for you. John, just to clarify something that Simon said, you said that a third of the land, 200,000 hectares, is not under forestry at the moment. It seems an awful lot of land that you have got control over that you do not have planted. Is a lot of that land being felled in a weight in replanting? Does that come into that 200,000 hectares? No, not at all. Land that is felled in a weight in replanting is still considered to be forestry land. This is principally mountainous hill land, extensive peat bogs, around 30,000 hectares of land in active agricultural use, as well as other types of land, for example, riparian land and some coastal land. Thank you. Sorry, John, back to you. No, no, thank you. That was touching on section 9 about the management of forestry land. Can someone explain some differences between, there seems to be similarities between sections 9 and 13, so the difference between the land applicable in sections 9 and 13 and the terms of management of that land and when would that power actually be called upon? In terms of the relationship between section 9 and section 13, section 9 is principally about forestry land. It is land that is principally designated for forestry, so that would include the national forest estate. The purpose of section 13 is to fulfil the policy that Scottish ministers should be able to, through forestry in land Scotland and the new executive agency, to have a broader land management role, so moving away from a silo approach of purely managing forestry. Forestry land under section 9 should be managed for the purposes of sustainable forest management, or, having had regard to the forestry strategy, could be used instead for sustainable development, enabling and opening up of the purposes that that land could be used for. Land under section 13 is not forestry land, it is other land and the purpose to which that should be managed is sustainable development. SFM and sustainable development are two twin beasts. SFM is about forestry land and sustainable development applies to other land. I am conscious that section 132A, or section 16, talks about compulsory purchase, but I think that colleagues are going to ask questions on that, so I will leave it there. Mike, I think that you are next. That is one section of the bill that I am struggling with. For the first time, it would seem that section 16 gives power to Scottish ministers to compulsory purchase land to achieve sustainable development, but there is no definition of sustainable development in the bill. It says that the Scottish ministers have made compulsory acquire land that they require for the purpose of exercising their functions under section 9 and 13. Scottish ministers must manage forest land in a way that promotes sustainable forest management. It seems to me on reading the face of the bill that this gives incredible power to Scottish ministers to compulsory purchase land and to the forest estate. Is that correct? There are a number of points to address, so I apologise if I take a little bit of time over this, but I think that it is an important point. The first point is that the powers of compulsory purchase land are not new for forestry in the 1967 act, so those have been taken over and replicated broadly in the bill. Will you leave that? It would be helpful under the 67 act to define what the compulsory purchase powers were there for, because that was purely for forestry, was it? Was it for sustainable development? It was purely for forestry and purposes connected to forestry. Which did not include sustainable development? Which did not include sustainable development. So those powers have been lifted and included in the bill. As we have mentioned, one of the purposes of the bill is for Scottish ministers to have a broader land management role. There is a symmetry in the bill in that all the powers that are available for forestry are available for the broader land management purpose. If it is for that reason that the power to acquire land and the power to acquire it through CPO has been included, you are correct in saying that this would be the first statute where Scottish ministers, purely for the purpose of sustainable development, would have powers of CPO. However, Scottish ministers and a number of other public bodies have powers in the rural area that could relate to sustainable development, but that particular term would be new to the legislation. There are checks and balances provided within the bill because the purpose—sorry, the underpinning legislation through which you would acquire the land through compulsion—is being tapped into the 1947 act, which is the standard procedure for how Scottish ministers exercise those powers. That provides the checks and balances. There is also a Scottish Government policy document that sets out the purposes of compulsory purchase, and it is for those reasons that that power is in the bill. Is it not just transferring current compulsory purchase powers under the law as it stands? It is increasing compulsory purchase powers to the minister. I am just a little bit exorcised by that. The Scottish ministers may compulsory require land that they require, so this will be up to the ministers to decide what they want to do with it. It would be up to the ministers following the procedures that are set out for all compulsory purchase powers. It seems to me to be an incredibly wide power that we are giving to Scottish ministers. Is that right? I would agree that it is a widening of the compulsory purchase power that is currently available. Perhaps it would help if Carol gave an example of something that she thinks that this might encompass, so that you could understand that? I can give an example in terms of forestry. I think that we understand the forestry. It is the sustainable development. The way that the powers would be exercised would be in accordance with the Government's policy of the day for the outcomes that it wanted the new agency to achieve. Current policy is that the new agency is to focus on forestry. I am afraid that I am unable to give you a specific example of when I believe that the Government of the future would be able to use it. It is there, as I say, because of the desire for symmetry across the peace. That is an important piece. We are talking about taking land from people who own land for particular purposes, but you do not seem to be able to give an example of when that power would be used. We are being asked, as a committee in the Parliament, to give ministers this power, and yet, from my perspective, I do not see any specific examples where this would be used differently to what the power was. I do not have any problem with what the powers of the ministers have now. I am utterly confused as to the need for this. I think that we pushed Carol quite hard on that. I am happy to bring Simon in, but it might be something that we could take up with the minister when he comes in. Maybe I could ask Simon to answer and then come to John Finnie if I may. Searching around in my mind for an example, as Carol was saying, looking back the way we have not had these situations to any degree, but there was an example a couple of years ago in relation to a designated peat bog that had a historic permission for peat extraction. It was also designated as an SAC, and we worked closely with Scottish ministers to try and find a solution to how to avoid that peat bog being destroyed by peat extraction. We ended up getting involved in a process of buying that site out and bringing it under management to restore it to favourable condition. That was not a situation where compulsory purchase was discussed. It was not a situation that pertain directly to the forest yet, but it is an example in my mind of the sorts of situations in which one could imagine that being one option to be considered. When you said that, that was an important point, because the members are queuing up. John Finnie, you are next. Sustainables are much used, and I would suggest abused words. I wonder whether it was a conscious decision not to define sustainable development within the bill. It was a conscious decision. Sustainable development is a well-used term, and it is used in legislation without definition. Gemma, perhaps you can give some examples of recent bills that it has not been defined. I am happy to come in on that. Sustainable development is not defined in the bill, but there is an established case law that says that the meaning is clear to the legislator, it is clear to judges and it is clear to ministers. The Scottish Government's view was that it was not needed to be defined. The term forestry land is defined, and the term national forest estate is defined. The default interpretive rule, if you like, is that where a word is not defined and not all words are defined in legislation is that it will take its ordinary meaning, so it is just looking at the plain ordinary meaning of the words, and that is the approach that a judge would take. Would it be possible, if I may, to share with the committee what the definition of sustainable development is in writing? I would like to come back to you with the judgment that Gemma referred to. The purpose for defining forestry land in the bill is to give transparency to public and to MSPs like yourself to identify the land that should be subject to sustainable forest management. There is a transparency element in that members of the public should be able to identify what is forestry land and therefore where ministers should be practising sustainable forest management. John, sorry, I am looking at you because I am as intrigued as you are on this. It may be very clear that a well-defined area is the national forest estate, and I hear what you say in relation to rulings. Similarly, if you were able, therefore, to give a definition of what sustainable economic growth is, that would be extremely helpful. I am thinking that it is probably quite helpful if we write to on this point setting out a number of definitions and what we understand as... No, that would be appreciated. Thank you very much. I think that that would be very helpful because I think that we are looking around, there are a few raised eyebrows on what it means, Peter, sorry. Well, I need to declare an interest because obviously I am a farmer and I own farmland in Aberdeenshire, and my concern here is that this is incredibly broad, I think. What's to stop the minister on a whim deciding that he would like a chunk of my land in the North East and would like to plant it? How would I argue against that if he came forward and said, you know, I have quite fancy about that? That would make a nice forest, but I didn't want to sell. How could I argue against that? I mean, this is incredibly wide and I think incredibly dangerous as well. Carol, do you want to want to sell? No, and if we're all saying, I own a bit of land as well, so I'm nervous about the minister. So I'll declare an interest that I have an interest in a farming partnership, and I suspect Stuart's going to say that he has a we interest as well. Do you want to just declare that? Indeed, I have three acres which is adjacent to forest land and therefore one might naturally think to extend. We've all got that out of the way. Carol, do you want to come back on that? I think that my colleagues who deal with policy on compulsory purchase would probably take issue with it being a whim because there are procedures for these things. There are checks and balances set out, but I can repeat, it's there because it's Scottish Government policy. We'd be happy to provide further information if we can. Compulsory purchase isn't an area that we lead on, but the bill reflects Scottish Government policy, which is to have these powers available for situations where you can't reach agreement. Is it in accordance with the published guidance that you've hopefully seen in the circular, which talks about exercising the power when it's in the public interest? So nothing would cut across that. I must say that I remain to be convinced that I look forward to your written submission on the point, but I think that this is far too wide and far too broad and far too dangerous in my opinion. I think that we need to give it considerable thought going forward. I'm going to bring Jamie in and then get back to my, if I may. So a few times have been mentioned, due process. If a minister decides that, from a policy point of view, a decision will be made to purchase a piece of land, what is the process that the minister has to go through? Who does the minister have to satisfy to allow that to happen? Again, compulsory purchase is something that my legal colleague, who is not here today, was dealing with, but the procedure is established in the 1947 act that Carol's already referred to. That sets out a procedure that's been followed on many occasions, publication requirements, opportunities of being heard in terms of the option of a hearing or a public local inquiry, provision for a compensation. It hooks into legislation that gives provision and compensation. Those sorts of checks and balances are along the way. Also, as I said, this would only ever be exercised in the public interest in that that's what's in the minister's published guidance. The land need not necessarily be purchased for the purpose of forestry, but could be for sustainable development, although that is an undefined term. Sustainable development is not defined, but it's not unusual not to define terms on the face of legislation. What will happen is that it will take its ordinary meaning. There will be many terms and many pieces of legislation that are not always defined. What will happen is that when it comes to that being interpreted, you look at the ordinary meaning of the words or of the term. As I said, there is established case law in the case of sustainable development, where one of the judges has said that it is a clearly understood term. I believe various accompanying documents such as the policy memorandum and the SPICE briefing have referred internationally accepted definitions of the term. What judicial recourse is available or statutory options are available to members of the public if they disagree with the intentions of the minister? In terms of compulsory purchase, that's where the objection procedure comes in. It's all about having an opportunity to be heard and to have those concerns put forward. I would add that the legislation is interpreted strictly by the courts, just because of the nature of what it is. It's all part of the checks and balances that Carol has spoken about because of the nature of the power that it is. Just to clarify an example that I've seen in the past, if you own a small patch of land and the Forestry Commission wants access to their woods on the far side, in the past they did a pair of negotiations, they could compulsory purchase a track through the farm and they could argue that that is in the public interest. That's what this legislation would allow them to do. Am I wrong? Sorry. The Forestry Act at the moment would allow the Forestry Commission to do that if the purpose was forestry. If there's another route, they can't do it, but they could say that this was under sustainable development. I've heard a number of comments that there are checks and balances. I'm still not quite clear what they are because it seems to me that, from what has been said, the minister decides what is in the public interest. Is that correct? I'm asking, does the minister decide what's in the public interest to him or herself? He said that it would only be used after negotiation, but if Parliament gives us power to enhance and compulsory purchase to the minister, then that strengthens his hand in any negotiation with any landowner about what the minister wants to purchase. I'm just not clear what the checks and balances are with the enhanced power that we're giving him. I think that the best way to answer that is for us to write to the committee with a detailed explanation of the way that compulsory purchase works overall, because that's the procedure that we're tapping into. I think that with your permission that would be a helpful thing to do, which sets out the way that it works for a number of powers and for a number of bodies. That would be very helpful. I want to bring in Radar, if I may, just on that. Just a very quick question on the issue. My reading of the bill suggests that this is for forestry purposes, but the example given was the preservation of peatland. I'm not clear on the bill where this refers to non-forestry land. The power of compulsory purchase refers to both forestry and non-forestry land. The non-forestry land, for the purposes of sustainable development, is not new under the bill. Directly, if you can, to where on the bill that is, because my reading of it is not new. Yes, section 16, subsection 1, Scottish ministers may compulsorily—sorry, I can't say that word very well—acquire land that they require for the purpose of exercising their functions under section 9, so that's forestry, and then section 13, which is for the purposes of sustainable development. Can I just ask one question just on the disposal before we move on to John Finnie? Currently the Government's policy on disposal of land is that they can dispose of land to rationalise, and this was agreement with this Parliament, I understand it. They can dispose of land to rationalise, but it's got to be reinvested in the forest estate. I think it would give concern, in section 17, that it just gives them the ability to dispose of land, but it doesn't put a requirement to reinvest in the forest estate. Would somebody care to comment on that? Okay, I can answer it for the purposes of the bill. Section 17 gives Scottish ministers the powers to dispose of land. Those are not very much different to the current legislative powers that they have to dispose of land at the moment, but what is in place at the moment is a policy around the proceeds being reinvested, and I'll ask Simon to... Yes, just to clarify, we have two streams for disposal on the estate. One is called rationalisation, which actually is the disposal of small pockets of land and buildings that are no longer required, and we use that income to fund the majority of our capital activity, for example purchase of vehicles and fleet, and capital works to our management buildings and the like. The other hitherto called rationalisation, now being called the new woodland investment programme, which is a larger scale sale of land for reinvestment into principally woodland creation, but also has been used to invest in examples of integrated land management with active farming for new entrants, for example, in the last few years. We have the rationalisation, the larger scale sale for reinvestment in woodland creation, and then we have the rationalisation, which is smaller scale, to fund Forest Enterprise Scotland's capital requirements. Carol, I can see you want to come back in, but I'm worried about the amount of time that we have left and the amount of themes if you want to be very brief. It was just to draw the committee's attention that any disposals of the national forest estate have to be undertaken in accordance with the forestry strategy. John Finnie. Some questions about community bodies. 1618 allows the delegation and the management of forestry in other land to community bodies in 19 and 20 follow on with other aspects of that. Can you outline how the powers in 18, 19 and 20 differ from the similar powers currently in the forestry act? The power at 18 is a straight lift from the forestry act with the exception that it's not just forestry land, it's any land. Again, it's a broadening out in a contribution to the community empowerment agenda. The definition at section 19 is the definition within the 67 act, which was amended by the Parliament two years ago via the community empowerment act. So it's a straight lift with a slight broadening to take account of this wider role. Okay. Some other quick questions have I made, then, please, convener. How did you arrive at the meaning of community body set out in the ball, and how does that compare with the meaning in the community empowerment Scotland act? We arrived at it because it's currently law. It's in the 67 act, which was amended via the community empowerment act in 2015. So it was the Parliament that arrived at that definition for forestry purposes. We have purely replicated it. Okay. It is different. There are a number of different definitions of community body in statute depending on the purpose. So the community empowerment act has got different definitions of community body depending on the purpose for which those provisions are used. Okay, thank you. The policy memorandum states that this is contributing to the community empowerment agenda. Can you outline how that goes? It enables communities to get involved in managing parts of the national forest estate. As I said, it's existing law, and we have merely lifted it and put it across. We saw no reason not to. No, no. It's a question, not an accusation. Sorry, but presented as such. If I can come in here in terms of the current situation, our current practice, we've just launched a new community asset transfer scheme, which in effect broadens an existing mechanism that we had to allow communities to bid to acquire parts of the national forest estate. That crucially increased the breadth from communities of geography, local residential communities, to communities of interest, which is consistent with the community empowerment act. I would see those provisions in the bill as being enabling us to continue to operate on that basis rather than any significant broadening of those powers. We've already brought our practices in line with the community empowerment act, and the bill ensures that it is aligned to those existing powers. That's very positive. I'm afraid that I'm going to have to use the term compulsory purchase again, but can I just ask—perhaps that is something that you could follow up in writing, if you will—that relates to whether land that was bought as a result of compulsory purchase to further the achievement of sustainable development would the legislation allow ministers to delegate the management of that land to a community body? I will follow up in writing. I believe that the legislation would allow that, but I would need to check in terms of whether there are certain rules in place for after you have purchased land through a CPO or what you must then do with it, but I'll be happy to follow up on that. I think that it would be helpful as well that if it was no longer required for sustainable development, whether the Government had an obligation to sell it back to the person from whence they compulsory purchased it, which I believe is a law at the moment, but it would help to clarify that. Now, there's a huge lot of question on filling, which Richard is going to lead on. I'm going to basically put it all together, if I can. Policy memorandum states that, while the Forestry Act 1967 focuses on timber, production in the new regime allows for a broader view to be taken. Consultation documents include a few detail on filling regime allowing a broader view, and that's where I'll put all those together. Why does the Scottish Government feel that a broader view on filling is needed? In what way are the provisions in the bill broader than the current filling regime? How much detail on the changes to the filling regime was included in the consultation document and what were the respondents' views on the proposal refilling? I will try and keep it short as per instructions. We've broadened it in the sense that we are tying all decisions taken on filling permissions, for example, back to sustainable forest management. The old regime focuses very strongly on timber production and allowing filling for timber production. We are tying those decisions back to sustainable forest management, so decisions will have to be taken on the balance of the three aspects that we talked about before. In the consultation, we stated that some of the detail that is in the current act will drop down as secondary legislation, and that's what we're doing. In terms of the detail of how it will be broadened out and what applicants can expect, that will all fall into secondary legislation, and that allows us to work with the sector to make sure that when we talk about referring back to SFM, they understand what that means and the processes that we put in place function correctly. I move on to regulations on filling. Part of the bill lacks details, since much of the detail will be provided in regulation. We've got regulation about application for filling permission, decision for applications to fill a tree, compensation for refusal of filling permission, filling directions and restocking directions, and appeals against decisions by ministers. Why is so much of the detail on the filling regime to be included in the regulations and not in the face of the bill, and what's the timetable and process for developing and consulting on those regulations? The thinking behind having all of this detail in secondary legislation is because it is very detailed. The Forestry Act at the moment, for example, creates exceptions to the situations where you have to apply for a filling licence, and that gets into detail such as diameter of trees. That is currently amended by secondary legislation when it needs to be. We've taken the view that it is fairer to the sector to work with them in the first instance to create all of those regulations. It would have been difficult for us to do that prior to the bill being published, because it's quite a different framework. We will now work with the sector to put all of that detail together, and we intend to have it already for commencement. Our current working date is spring 2019. On my last point, the refusal of filling permission. Section 29 relates to the compensation for the refusal of filling permission. Under what circumstances might the Scottish ministers refuse an application for filling permission, and what is the current process for compensation in such circumstances? The situations are some of the detail that we're yet to work out, but at one end of the spectrum there are certainly situations where it would be detrimental to the environment, for example, or perhaps if there are reasons from a timber supply point of view not to fell. It's quite rare—I think I'm looking at Jo because she's the current regulator—but I'm led to believe that it is quite rare that that is refused. What is much more likely is that filling permissions will continue to be given with conditions attached that would require restocking. This is not so much about stopping filling from happening, it's about maintaining woodland cover after filling takes place. The way it's regulated now and the way it will continue to be regulated is to allow for conditions to be attached to permissions to fell, and to allow the regulator to require restocking when filling is taken place illegally. That's what's currently in place. It's the basic principles now, and it will continue to be. Do you want to come in on that, Jo? I mean, just on that, I was a bit confused in the bill that it can refuse you permission and then it can come back and order you to fell it in sustainable development. So you might be refused permission for a nature conservation reason. The trees then blow over and you're ordered to fell it and restock it, or the majority fall over. I didn't quite understand how will that work. If I could come in on that, perhaps it's because it looks linear in the bill just because that's the way it's set out, but it's not linear in practice. The reason for having the ability to to direct felling is more to avoid harm caused by trees, and again that's quite rare. It exists already, I'm not sure how often it's used, but it's a separate situation where you have a stand of trees grown for timber, you want to fell them. The regulation is in place to allow us to require restocking, the situation in which we would direct felling as a regulator is quite different, it's where trees are causing harm. Okay, I'm noticing Joe shaking. I had to say it doesn't happen very often, say as long as that's on the record. Mike, you want to come in and then I want to move on. Yes, please. This bill is obviously directed at commercial tree felling and that sort of thing, but just struck me that on section 23 it says, a person commits an offence if the person fells a tree, a tree and less exemptions. Can I just ask a rather silly question in a way? In rural Aberdeinshire, there are lots of people with large, one acre gardens and trees and everything else. I mean, I'll be bringing people like that into this bill. I'm shaking ahead, I'm pleased to see that, but just as a layperson, looking at reading this, a person commits an offence if a person fells a tree. Yes, it does look like that. The reality is that the current offence is felling a growing tree. We continue with that, and it's just a question of construction. An offence needs to be pretty clear so that people understand when they are committing an offence. On top of that, we will have exemptions. Currently, those exemptions, for example, could set a minimum area, so we take the single tree out of the equation by creating an exemption for it. Right, and those exemptions stand in this bill and in the current law? They will be set out in secondary legislation. This is a forestry bill. We are not looking at single trees, but the way it will be constructed is that we put all the exemptions in secondary legislation. I just wanted that clarification, thank you. Who's going to come in and tell us that it's still all right to cut down the old tree for Farwood later? I think I would just say, if you look at the current legislation—and I wouldn't blame if you didn't, because there's all sorts of complexity in there—that lays out all of those exemptions. Things like if it's a fruit tree, if it's in a garden, if it's in a park, they are the sorts of exemptions, but they're currently in the—and that all does need, if I'm honest, bringing up to date. I think this is what we're talking about with the secondary legislation. Okay, thank you. I'm going to move on to Peter, if I may, with the next. My question is about notices to comply and compliance. In chapter 6, it's about registering notice to comply with continuing conditions, for instance, felling conditions and restocking conditions. In my question is, how do provisions in the bill and registration of notices to comply differ from the current system? System allows the regulator to enforce, broadly speaking, a failure to comply with a felling licence or felling direction on subsequent owners. What we're putting in place is a link to the existing system that we have that allows new owners to know exactly what they're purchasing—any burdens, for example, that sit with that land. At the moment, there is less transparency. If you were to purchase land, it depends on the seller telling you that they had a felling licence and that there are conditions that still run with that land. What we're putting in place is the opportunity for the regulator to take a view as to whether those conditions should actually be put on the register so that, in the normal searches that solicitors run, when you are purchasing a piece of land, all of those conditions appear. So that is about purchasing an existing forest that's already growing trees? You could be purchasing it at the point where everything has been felled and restocking conditions still apply. Transparency at that point. If you were to buy a mature forest, I think you would understand what you were buying much more easily than if you were buying a piece of forestry land that has been felled but not yet restocked. One of the consequences of the new bill is the repeal of the Forest Act 1967 in Scotland. The main thing that struck me from that is the fact that the current act states that all activities on national forestry land must be tree related. The new bill removes that restriction. Is anyone in the panel aware of any other substantial consequences or implications that may occur as a result of the repeal of the 1967 act that the committee should be aware of? There are functions that are currently placed on the Forestry Commissioners via the 1967 act, which a view has been taken are obsolete or unnecessary. I would be happy to write with a list of those but there are some examples relating to activities such as going on to a neighbour's land, shooting the rabbits and selling them back to him for the privilege, which we felt was not perhaps a modern policy directive. In a slightly more sensible one, Forestry commissioners have powers to make bylaws for access at the moment. It has been considered that because of the Land Reform Act and the fact that access is now a local issue, Scottish ministers do not have bylaw making powers for access that those powers should not be kept for Scottish ministers. There are some examples where the opportunity has been taken to modernise, refresh and remove some of those obsolete functions, but I would be happy to provide a list of those if that would be helpful. It would be helpful to get a list of things that are being dropped or lost as a result of the repeal of the 1967 act and things that are additional or new in the new bill, so there would be quite a clear comparison. I think that we might find that quite helpful. Yes, we would be very happy to do that. Thank you, and just further to that. Is there any view on why some of the additional aspects of widening scope and powers of the Scottish ministers is falling into this bill that maybe should have been included in the Land Reform Act or why are they specifically being included here if they are not necessarily related to forestry? The main element of the bill that is not related to forestry is the one that we have already touched on in terms of the broader land management rule. That is there to fulfil a manifesto commitment and a policy to give Scottish ministers that wider land management rule and to establish land Scotland as a land agency for Scotland, so the bill facilitates delivery of that manifesto commitment. The new forestry division will sit within the new executive agency? No, the new forestry division will sit within the core Scottish Government. It will be a division of the environment and forestry directorate. Forestry and Land Scotland will be the new executive agency that will report to Scottish ministers. I think that there might be some clarification on the organogram structure of how the agencies and divisions and the directorates and the ministers all fit together. We will also be quite helpful. I am happy to provide that. The final theme is John. Thank you, convener. One of the most interesting aspects of any bill is the financial side. We have heard about this forestry governance project board, which I think was set up to look at the finances of devolution. Can you explain something to us about that? Does it produce a report or where are we going with that? The forestry governance project board was set up after the announcement that the ministers made in 2015 that they had agreed with the UK Government to complete the devolution of forestry. The board is chaired jointly by directors in DEFRA and the Scottish Government. It also has membership from the Forestry Commission. Joe and Simon are on it and representatives from England and Wales on that board. The remit of the board is specifically around the cross-border arrangements. We need to agree that across the three Governments. It is not financed within Scotland. It is looking at the current cross-border functions that are delivered by the forestry commissioners across Britain at the present time. And what processes we will put in place collectively across the three countries for those types of arrangements in the future. The particular finance issue is the fact that at the moment the funding of those cross-border functions is by DEFRA on behalf of all administrations, and we are looking at how that funding will be shared going forward. It is a specific issue on the cross-border. I understand that Forest Research Scotland contributes £2.48 million to that. Is it around those figures as to whether we will be contributing more after devolution or less? The £2.48 million is specifically for activities that are Scottish specific activities. Where we are asking for research to do something that only Scotland wants them to do in terms of research, and Joe might want to say a bit more about that. What we are looking at is the core budget that forest research gets from DEFRA, which is around £8 million. That covers research that is relevant to all of Britain, not just to Scotland. We obviously want that research to continue going on. Would the risk be that, because we have more than our 8.3 per cent or whatever population share of forestry, we might end up having to foot more of that bill that DEFRA used to fund? We are still negotiating what the share of that is, but we would anticipate that the budget, which is currently in DEFRA, our share of that bill would come to the Scottish Government. There is no agreement as to how that would be shared out. That is still for agreement between the three governments. I think that we would probably like to be kept updated on that, as that goes forward. The suggestion is that there is not going to be a huge amount of cost, and certainly nothing for local authorities or other bodies, but one of the big chunks of money that there is going to be is on IT. Now, whenever you mention IT at this committee, people get quite wound up and worried. The figures vary from £2.05 to £8.05 million, which seems quite a wide range. Could you give us any comment on that? Yes. As set out in the finance memo, the IT specialists and the Forestry Commission are working with our Scottish Government IT specialists about the exact nature of the integration of the current Forestry Commission systems. There are aspects of that that they still have to fully work out, and that is why there is a greater range on some of the aspects under that particular item. It would be fair to ask for an update, convener, as we go forward on that. It might also be useful to know that that is the broadest range. It is not going to go above that. Is that what you are saying? That is the broadest range that the IT specialists have given. Okay. Thank you. That is all the questions that we have time for, I am afraid. There are other questions which the clerks will marshal at the end of this from various members, because I noticed that some members have questions that I have not been able to bring in. What we will do is submit those and remind you also of the things that you have undertaken to respond to the committee on. I would like to thank you all for coming in. In the coming weeks, we will be taking further evidence from various stakeholders. I suspect that we may well be seeing some of you again with the cabinet secretary when he comes in to update the committee. Thank you very much. I would like to briefly suspend the meeting now, asking committee members to be back in in three minutes, please. Thank you. I would like to move to agenda item 2, which is to deal with the national transport strategy. I would like to welcome Hamza Yousaf, the minister of transport in the islands, Heather Cowan, the head of transport strategy and European funding, Bertrand Desk. I thank you for helping me out. Transport strategy officer and Rory Morrison, the senior research officer at the Scottish Government. I would like to invite the minister to make a brief opening statement, if I may. Good morning. Thank you, convener. I always know your preference for brief statements, so I will make it that. The national transport strategy review will produce a successor strategy that will set out a compelling vision for the kind of transport people and businesses want for Scotland over the next 20 years. The Scottish ministers are committed to delivering a collaborative review of the NTS, which will give partners, transport operators, local authorities, businesses and the travelling public, of course, and communities right across Scotland a greater say in influencing the development of transport policy at the local, regional and, indeed, of course, the national level 2. We are offering opportunities to collaborate and co-produce with our key partners through a partnership group and our various working groups. For example, regional transport partnerships in COSLA will have representation in the roles and responsibilities working group, as well as the NTS partnership group co-chaired by COSLA. The governance body, the NTS review board, is chaired by myself. As you will be aware, convener and members, an early engagement consultation was carried out by online survey between December 2016 and March of this year. This report was published last week. The purpose of this exercise was to gather some views from members of the public and interested organisations across Scotland on strategic transport outcomes, changes, challenges and opportunities for transport and, indeed, the desired format of future engagement in relation to the review of the NTS. A total of 614 responses were received on the consultation, of which 538 came from individuals, which compares very favourably to other fairly high-profile strategic plans and demonstrates how much people care about transport. There were a few emerging key themes, if I may highlight them briefly. Respondents made a number of often connected points about increasing levels of active travel, cycling and walking. The Government has invested £175 million in active travel since the start of the 2011 spending review and is committed to maintaining those record levels in active travel. Many respondents referenced sustainability and the importance of reducing levels of emissions. That was sometimes associated with reducing the number of car journeys through the increased use of public transport and the increased rates of active travel. Another frequently raised issue concerned the need for high-quality and integrated public transport services, as well as for the commitment to address the transport-related challenges resulting from remoteness and rurality. Finally, one of the other key themes was affordability and accessibility of transport, which was highlighted. On the progress of the review, the finding of the early engagement exercise will now be used to inform wider public and stakeholder engagement, extending the collaborative ethos of the review still further. We are in the process of developing a plan for full-scale Scotland-wide stakeholder engagement to take place later this year, culminating in a full public consultation with the intention to publish national transport strategy 2 in summer 2019. The responses to the early engagement survey have provided a number of possibilities of how full-scale stakeholder engagement can progress through online channels, social media, existing working groups, forums, dedicated events, special interests groups, community engagement and, of course, I would welcome any views that members have on that. Parallel with the NTS review team, there have been established seven working groups, as members may know, which will address key challenges and topics within the review. Some of those groups have now met and the first meeting of the remaining groups will be scheduled from this month onwards. Those groups will meet every few months until approximately July 2018. Strategic policy options will be developed during that time and will then be tested by stakeholders and modelling works. That concludes my opening remarks. I am more than happy to take comments, questions, suggestions and, indeed, advice from yourself and other members of the committee. Thank you, minister. Before we go any further, I would like to just check that there are no declarations of interest regarding transport. I see Stuart Wanslow here. I am the honorary secretary of the Scottish Association for Public Transport, honorary vice-president of Rail Future UK. I have no executive role in either of those bodies, but I have been part of the internal consultation related to what is before the committee. I think that Rhaedda has a declaration. I am honorary vice-president of Friends of the Far North line as well. Thank you. Rhaedda, that seems appropriate that you lead off on the questions as well. Can I ask how progress has been measured of the original national transport strategy? I think that that is fundamentally a really good question. It is part of the reason why, for example, a refresh took place. It was commissioned in 2015 and took place over that 2015-16 period. That refresh looked at the 2006 strategy, the original strategy, which, as members will know, had those three key strategic outcomes as well as those five high-level objectives. The refresh looked at that, produced in its annex at a table that showed how we measured up since 2006 to the current day. That is how it has been measured and, in some cases, good progress had been made. In others, clearly, there was still some progress that had to be made. Three strategic outcomes improved journey times and connections, reduced emissions and improvement in quality, accessibility and affordability. Can you tell the committee how it measured up on all those three outcomes? How far did it get? It is certainly worth members—I know that they will have seen it anyway—but it is certainly worth members looking again at that table that was produced as part of the refresh, which we can go into a little bit more detail. I can give specific examples of where some of that has worked in relation to the key strategic outcomes that Rhoda Grant has mentioned. One of the greatest successes that we have measured up well against has been the reduction of casualties on our roads. The number of people who have killed road accidents in Scotland, for example, has been reduced from 300 to 200, which is a 36 per cent reduction, despite there being a 2 per cent increase in road traffic. On the safety side, there have been some good improvements. On the use of other modes of transport and public transport, we know that good statistics and numbers in terms of the increase in people taking the train. We know also that there has been an increase in the percentage of trains arriving on time, the PPM figure, from 86 per cent in 2005 to 96 per cent in 2015-16. There have been positive developments. I would say that there are areas where there have been significant challenges and we should not shy away from that. If I looked at the decline in bus patronage, for example, that is still an area where the trajectory is in the wrong direction and where there is some work still to do. Although we have made some significant progress in terms of reduction in CO2 emissions, clearly as a Government, we want to go further than that as well. The table in the refresh will go into more detail. There have certainly been some successes, but we are fully aware that there are some areas where we would have to go further. One of the outcomes is improved quality, accessibility and affordability. How do you measure that? Some of those are soft targets, which are down to perception. How can you measure that in a way that people have confidence? That is a really good question. What I would say to the member is that although we have that overarching national transport strategy, we have a number of other fundamental documents that flow from that. One of the things that I was really proud to do as transport minister was in September, I believe, last year when I launched the accessible travel framework. I got a framework developed for the next 10 years of how we make our transport more accessible to those with mobility issues, disabilities and so on and so forth. That has, in itself, the document that contains how we will measure that. There is a review group that will measure that. There have certainly been successes that I could point to. Again, if you look at the bus industry, progress in terms of accessibility of our buses are key targets that they have to meet due to statutory guidelines and legislation that exists. On affordability, that is a really important point. It is important to stress here in Scotland, for example, that if we look at train fares, we know that the Government has stepped in in terms of the cap at which those fares can rise. We know that, as a result of that, any increase in train fares in north of the border here in Scotland has been much less than in the south of the border. However, that is not to take away from the fact that members of the public still feel that elements of their transport could be made more affordable. We have tried to do that for, for example, our island communities. The introduction of RET has been welcomed greatly by island communities on the western isles, but rightly, again, we get challenged from those on the northern isles. Of course, we are committed to taking action on ferry fare. There have certainly been successes on the affordability and accessibility front. They are measured through documents that we have, of course, even the franchise agreement in the ScotRail and so on and so forth. However, I would never like to come to this committee with the impression that I believe that we have done everything perfect and that things cannot be improved upon. I think that things can be improved upon, and that is hopefully what will come out in the review process. The refreshed strategy in January 2016 did not really provide any specific policies or proposals that were very informative in a sense that it outlined the changes in the landscape of the last 10 years. What was the purpose of the refreshed strategy, knowing that just a few months later a full review would be announced? A couple of things. I think that I probably said to that. One, the refresh has helped to inform us of the reasons rationale of why there should be a full scale review. It was not the case that, before the refresh was undertaken, we knew that we were going to do a review straight after that. The refresh looked at the evidence base. As members will know, there would have been a fair change in evidence between 2005 and 2006, when the strategy was produced originally to where we got to 10 years later in 2015 and 2016. It was important to refresh that evidence base that existed. That evidence base then allowed us to look at the analysis of that evidence and then determine that there should be a full-scale review. It was probably worth making the obvious point for those around the table here, as politicians. They probably understand that. It would have been unfair to establish a full-scale review towards the very tail end of a parliamentary term in 2015, bearing in mind that this review is a two-to-three-year review. If there had been a change in administration, for example, it might have seemed to be quite unfair for a review to be half the way through for a new administration, but it would have little to be able to influence that. The start of a parliamentary term is probably the right place to do a full-scale review. In your answer, you mentioned that one of the outcomes of the interim refresh of the NTS was that there is now a full-scale review. Why took the Government 11 years to do a full-scale review of a matter of such importance? Given that 614 organisations responded, surely it is a testament to the scale of the interest that their views and voices were heard. It seems like a terribly long tail, given that other policy documents are generally refreshed on a much more frequent basis, such as every five years. I am happy to explore that in the context of the review that is on-going and whether there should be any statutory time for review. I have to say that I am not inclined to go that way. My gut tells me that that is not probably a good idea. The reason for that is that if we look at the current strategy, there is the ability to have a review every four years. I know that, in 2010, there were discussions with what was known as the NTS stakeholder group, so that includes all the organisations that you would expect it to from COSLA right the way through to CBI Scotland, the STUC, passenger organisations, commuter interest organisations represented, and they took the view that in 2010 a review was not necessary. The collaborative approach that we took—of course, the decision ultimately for ministers, but in consultation with that stakeholder group that decided that our review was not necessary, so the NTS was still very much relevant. People know that, in transport, that is why we take a 20-year review of the national transport strategy, because it is a long game that we are involved in when it comes to transport changing behaviours and making transport improvements. That was not a decision that was taken just by ministers. I hope that I can give the member assurance that that was taken at the time with consultation with the national transport strategy stakeholder group. Now it would be fair to say that 10 years on from that we are very much at the place where all stakeholders think that review is a good idea. Again, this is not just a ministerial decision to review the national transport strategy. Certainly, when I meet with RTPs, COSLA, SOLIS and many other stakeholders, there is a real, yes, this is the right time for a review. I do not think that there is any difference of opinion in that. I appreciate your frankness for that answer. Just to clarify for the record, it was not a ministerial decision not to have taken a review in the past 11 years. It was the national transport strategy. In some respects, I said that ultimately ministers take that decision, so it is a Scottish Government strategy. It is up to ministers whether there is a review, there is a refresh or there is any tinkering of that. Ultimately, of course, it is a ministerial decision, but I hope that I gave the impression that it was done in collaboration stroke consultation with the NTS stakeholder group at the time. I would have to go back to 2010 and think who the minister for transport was at the time. You could obviously ask him, but I am pretty sure that from my briefing it suggests that the NTS stakeholder group was consulted and collaborated. I am not saying that everybody, all of the stakeholders, had the same opinion. I am sure that that would not be the case with as many stakeholders as there are on that group, but, certainly, taking advice from them, the minister at the time took the decision, I think, absolutely rightly that it was not the need for a full-scale review after four years. Thank you minister for doing that. I am not going to have to bring him in, so Stuart is going to ask you a question. Just on the back of that minister, given that the current national transport strategy actually has Tavish Scott's signature at the bottom of it, does that not illustrate that this is the kind of document that is representative of a consensus that exists and setting out a long-term view of where we are going? It is something that we ought to be able to find common cause on, as I think a previous transport minister possibly myself picked this one up and ran with it, and that, really, our disagreements and differences of views are more likely to come when we examine specific projects, rather than the overarching strategy where we are not, as I think history tells us, to be able to reach a high level of agreement? I think that that is absolutely correct. I will not add too much to that credit, where credit is due to the previous administration, Towers, that coalition government at the time, clearly put together a document that has stood the test of time, a document that is well respected when I speak to, for example, chief operating officers of transport right across the country. They really respect and hold in high regard the national transport strategy, but we are one day away from a election, so I should not praise the opposition too much. Despite Mr Rumble's protestations otherwise, I think that it does stand the test of time, and that is the purpose of the review. We want to take it forward in a collaborative approach as possible. That has also been a learning exercise. I mean, COSLA had come back once or twice to me as a minister to say, we think that we should be represented on this group or co-sharing this, or other stakeholders said that. I have demonstrated my willingness to be as open as possible to that process, and you have got to try to find a balance between doing that and then having death by committee, where there is far, far too many stakeholders to be able to make a decision or too many working groups to function. I think that we have managed to strike that balance well. Fine. I do not recognise that death by committee. I am sure that that was not referred to here. John Scott has the next question. Thanks, convener. Assuming that there are some changes to the national transport strategy as we go through the review, what does that have an impact on the day-to-day decisions of the Government and of Transport Scotland, if there are changes? Yes, inevitably. It could potentially do that. The national transport strategy is an overarching document, a high-level document. The day-to-day decisions that we make on a variety of investments or the transport decisions will be informed by the context of those issues on an issue-by-issue basis, but the national transport strategy provides the outcomes, the high-level outcomes that we want to try to achieve. Of course, there are other documents that the national transport strategy is one—the STPR is one that a lot of members have an interest in as well, which is strategic transport projects review is of great importance to members in terms of the investment of strategic transport routes in their particular region or constituency. I have no doubt that the review will focus our thinking on Government, but it should be said that it is at a high level as opposed to the every-day decisions that have to be made that affect members around the table. You said that summer 2019 was the target date for the new strategy. Can you give us a bit of detail about what happens between now and then and how people and stakeholders can feed in? Yes. In terms of how stakeholders can feed in, we are doing a little bit more work on that, and that is on the back of the early engagement. Once I have a little bit more of a firmer view, of course, I am more than happy to write to the member on that. In terms of what happened between now and summer 2019, I say to members not to necessarily hold me down to every single month here because this is an approach that will be collaborative. Between now and 2018, as well as the call for evidence that we have already had, there is also a call for evidence from one of the working groups at the moment in terms of the research group that we have. We have seven working groups and they will continue to work and meet between now and July 2018 those working groups, the seven of them. I can give details to the members on that, but they are split up into functional groups and thematic areas and thematic groups. Between 2018 and 2019, strategic policy options will be developed from January 2018 until July of that year, collated in August 2018. Those options will then be tested by stakeholders. A monitoring framework to enable the monitoring of the NTS2 will be developed between August and December 2018, and that will likely include key performance indicators. The draft national transport strategy will then be produced in January 2019, followed by a consultation period between February and May of that year, with the NTS document to be developed in summer 2019. Essentially, to boil all that down, why we have the working groups reporting back to the review group is that by the time we get to the consultation in early 2019, we should have a pretty solid draft that has been informed from the grass roots up from stakeholder engagement right the way through to public engagement right up and down the country. By the time the consultation comes, we should hopefully have a good idea of how that transport strategy is going to look. However, just to road test it, we will go to that final consultation period beforehand. However, it is a two to three year project that allows us to get into the depth and the meat of some of those issues. Each of the issues that is going to be discussed and all this from each mode of transport has 101 different issues that you could spend quite a considerable of time delving into, so it is important that we take our time taking that strategic and evidence-based approach. That is very helpful. Finally, I want to follow up the line of questioning that Jamie Greene had as to what has happened between 2006 and now. I am just wondering if you today thought about what would happen from 2019 onwards, because I suppose that my gut feeling is that I quite like things to be reviewed after five years or reviewed after 10 years or there is some kind of plan in there. It seems to me that it has been a little bit vague for the last 11 years as to what was happening at what point. I think that that will be part of the work that we are doing with the review. I think that we are very aware, and I am very aware as the minister that the monitoring can be a little bit more robust and could be strengthened for NTS2 as compared to the current strategy. Although it was done in collaboration with the stakeholder group, I think that perhaps firming up when reviews, when refreshers should happen and taking a slightly more, as I said, kind of KPI approach, it is one that my instinct and my gut is that we should move down that route to give confidence. I do not want to make that decision unilaterally. I want to, of course, work with the review groups and other stakeholders on that, but I accept the member's point. I think that it is one that he and Jamie Greene made fairly well, and it is one that we are aware of, so I have given them at least that reassurance. Thank you very much. Good morning, minister. Minister, you alluded to the early-view survey, and looking down the list, an analysis identified 11 key themes. I have to say that it is very, very positive, promoting cycling, walking, active travel, environmental issues, including reduced remissions, high-quality integrated public transport, rural and island transport, affordability and accessibility. It reads like a green manifesto. What was the purpose of the online survey launched in 2016, and how will those responses influence the development of the revised NTS, please? I am not going to take the bait a day before the election of the manifesto, but it is a point that is well made. I think that there is certainly a real interest now wherever I go, wherever the mode of transport, wherever the topic on transport, that active travel is mentioned certainly as an integral part of the discussion. Whether I am talking about ferries and people are talking to me about bike storage, whether it is trains in equally the same situation, whether it is about dualling on the roads and infrastructure projects, what is the active travel component to that? Almost in every discussion, I have active travel seems to be a key part. I think that the point that he makes about this being at the forefront of people's mind is certainly one that I would agree with. I would be interested to speak to Tavis Godd at some point about whether or not he felt that it was a key consideration for him in 2006, as it is clearly going to be for us. I think that there has been a change in people's mood in terms of demanding action and active travel that might not have been quite to the same level in 2006, but I would be interested in that conversation. In terms of his direct question, the partnership group has already discussed some of the findings of the early engagement. It should be said that the call from evidence was not just something that we decided to do, that we thought was a good idea and that the topics were chosen by us. That was very much something that came forward from our research and review group. They were the ones who suggested that those are the kind of topics that we might want to look at and examine. I think that looking at the responses, looking at the key themes that have come back, they probably got it right. I am pretty impressed by the 600-plus responses. I will look at other transport strategies that we have put out and, in fact, even other strategies across Government. That exceeds quite a number of them. Clearly, the topics that were chosen to have that early engagement on certainly seem to be garner some public interest. You will be aware that survey respondents were particularly concerned that the revised NTS focused on the development of safe cycling and walking networks. Earlier on, you talked, if I noted that you are committed to maintaining record levels of funding for active travel. I hope that that will be in the next budget settlement, because we have a real-terms reduction in active travel in this one. How will the development of walking and cycling networks feature in the revised NTS, please? I am happy to get green support for that budget. I am sure that that was one of the considerations of support. It was the record level of investment in active travel that we committed to do over the parliamentary term, but I have no doubt that the member will, as other members, push the Government to always go further to look for more money to spend on that. I know of the Greens' own view on that. As the minister in charge, I would say that I can find additional spend for active travel. I am open minded to doing that. How the NTS 2 will look to take this agenda forward? Obviously, that will come out of the review process and discussions. All that I can give the member a very certain reassurance on is that it is a key consideration for us. It is worth saying that Sustrans are a part of that review group, that very high-level review group that I chair. They certainly have a seat at the top table, if I can put it that way. On my own thinking on that, I have been very public on the record and fact, even in front of this committee, of the importance of, for example, segregated psychopaths and how important that is for increasing active travel. We have an active travel task force that is looking at some of the issues at a local level and also a national level that may be barriers to cycling infrastructure. All of that will feed into the NTS review, but there is certainly no shortage of active travel organisations that represent the NTS working groups, but they are also part of the review group. I can give the member absolute assurances that it is very much at the forefront of our thinking. Thank you very much, minister. There is a follow-up on that from John Finnie. Just following on from some of the things that John Finnie has been saying, the term safe cycling and clearly there has been a little bit of a clash in Edinburgh between improved public transport, the trams and certainly claims by cyclists that their safety has been compromised in order to get the trams running. Is this something that would be reflected at this level or is that something that would be looked at at a different place? I mean, specifically on the issue that he is referring to in the very tragic incident that took place in terms of the cyclist who was killed after going over tram lines. I know Edinburgh said he came in his own transport for Edinburgh. Of course, they have responsibility for that, and they are taking that responsibility incredibly seriously, having said that they will look again at what safety provisions can be made on the tram network for cyclists and indeed for pedestrians, so I think that we should give them the time and the space to do that good work and have a lot of time for transport for Edinburgh. I think that they are a really excellent organisation, so I think that it is important to give them the time and the space to do that. In terms of the working groups, I mentioned the seven working groups. One of the thematic groups is delivering safe and resilient transport. I mentioned some of the successes in my remarks to Rhoda Grant about the reduction in fatalities on our roads, for example, but looking at the flip side of that, there is clearly some work to do when it comes to safety for cyclists. They have been identified as one of the most vulnerable groups on the roads, along with pedestrians, along with older drivers, young drivers and motorcyclists, there and amongst there as one of the most vulnerable groups. It is certainly something that keeps me awake. How can we reduce the serious incidents and, indeed, fatalities that our cyclists face? Cycling is becoming more popular. I want it to become more popular, but, for me, having segregated psychopaths is a part of that. That is why I find it such an important issue to get that right. It will be considered as part of the thematic group that I have talked about, the delivering safe and resilient transport, but, even out with the review process, it is something that takes up rightly a lot of my attention and is one that we are not going to wait for the review process to continue to do work on this agenda. I can give the member an absolute assurance that it is one that we are continuing to work on. Good morning, minister. Transport Scotland has established a research and evidence working group. I know that there are four members from Transport Scotland on it, including Mr Rory Morrison, who is sitting at the end there, and I want to target my questions to you, Mr Morrison, after the minister has answered this one. How did we make up, and I know that there are four professors on that group, two from England and two from Scotland? How did we settle on that group? Are those people who are proficient in their field and agathrid transport? I will say a couple of things if I can. The need for this group is really important, research and evidence. We always want to take an evidence-based approach to what we do in government. The refresh in 2015-16 showed that the evidence-based could be more robust for the work that we do. I attended the presentation recently by one of the members of the research and evidence group, Professor Tom Rye. He was at the Scots AGM Chief Operating Chief Officers of Transport in Scotland. It was an excellent presentation and perhaps I wonder whether it can be whether we can ask him to share it to members of the committee, because it really spoke about how there needs to be a better evidence and academic evidence base that can be tested at an academic level for the presumptions and assumptions that we make about transport. I found it to be absolutely fascinating. The need for that research and evidence group is usually important. As I said, they were very much involved in our consideration for what should go out in terms of evidence. Of course, they also have a call for evidence themselves, which closes in July of this year. For me, each of the academics on that group are certainly recognised, particularly Tom Rye, but not all of them. Of course, very much the chair of being people of extremely high calibre and well-respected in the transport industry, but I am happy to pass, as the member wanted, to Rory to perhaps add to that. The question that I wanted to ask, Mr Morrison, was what do you believe is the purpose of the research and evidence working group? Do you have carte blanche to take evidence to aid this review and will you be talking to users, stakeholders or all the people who use basically transport in order to formulate your review back to the minister? Sure. There are several parts to that. I am an analyst for Transport Scotland, and I provide the secretariat to that group and part to organise it. Just to reiterate the minister's comments, the academics that were chosen were selected partly because they are senior academics in their field. They offer a good coverage of the strategic transport issues that the review will touch upon. Gillian Annabelle's area of research, who is a chair, includes demand side solutions to reduce carbon and energy use in transport. Members are interested in the societal implications of autonomous vehicles and other new mobility solutions. Obviously, no four people can represent transport research as a very, very broad field. No four people can represent everything completely and have that depth of knowledge, but they have a broad understanding of the types of work that is going on in transport research more generally and can connect the research and evidence group into other existing on-going research. On the function, there are several parts. One is to manage the call for evidence that was open in April and closes at the end of July. However, it serves a function throughout the review in terms of a scrutiny and challenge function on the use of evidence, so both being able to respond to ad hoc requests and requests from working groups on issues of evidence and questions around research. It is also to scrutinise the evidence that is used in the formulation of policy. It has an external chair, so that emphasises that it has an autonomy separate from the policy-making aspects of the process. How will the eventual output of the research and evidence working group be used in the drafting of the revised national transport strategy? How would you deal with a situation where evidence provided by the group was at odds with either your thinking or the current Scottish Government policy? We have to be relaxed on the latter point about the fact that, if there is evidence and suggestions from other working groups that they have suggestions of policy that might directly conflict with Government policy, we have to, of course, at the time make a consideration about how we deal with that. I do not suspect that there will be huge conflicts. We are doing this in a way that is grass roots but also collaborative, so we are helping to inform but also be informed in that process. However, there are potential conflicts, but there are suggestions that we should focus our energies greater on one particular aspect of transport or perhaps give further consideration to aspects. We have to be guided by that. There is no point going through a two- to three-year review process that is in depth as this is going to be if we are not going to take on the outcomes and the advice from stakeholders on that. The fact that it will be backed by evidence and research will, of course, give that firmer more strength, more robustness and, as I said, there is simply no point as a Government minister instructing review and then choosing to ignore it, so I think that we have given it the proper consideration that it merits. Glad to hear that. The final question is appropriately with Stewart. The previous Scottish Transport Project's review, I remember extremely well, I quite remember, I think that it was 3,600 pages or it was certainly of that order, is under 29 broad headings. How is what is currently going on in the national transport strategy going to inform the new STPR and timescales? I think that we have heard a little bit about timescales, but have we yet set a date for when we might bring forward the STPR? The only thing that we have said about the timetable of the STPR 2 would be that we can be concluded in this parliamentary term. I think that the reason for that, and I do appreciate that, in some respects, members will see that as vague, but the reason for that is that clearly we need to have the overarching national transport strategy, so the NTS2 complete quite substantially before we make any major progress on the review of the STPR. The STPR that currently exists is a document that is live, that is relevant, a very good document as well, and again one that when I travel across the country is held in very high regard. However, some preliminary work on the STPR 2 has already commenced to help with the review of NTS. That work, for example, includes development of future transport scenarios, setting out what transport in Scotland might look like, but clearly we should wait for that overarching 20-year vision of transport before we then delve into what the STPR 2 will look like. As I said, the intention is absolutely to conclude it during this parliamentary session, and starting some of that preliminary work means that we can get moving on that soon after NTS2 is published. I don't think that there's any more questions, minister, so unless there's anything that you particularly want to raise that we haven't questioned, I'm happy to give you a very, very brief chance to feed in. No, there's nothing. Thanks, convener, for the questions. The only thing that I would really add to that, I appreciate the fact that we sent detail of the analysis of the early call for evidence and so on to you just last weekend. I know that mine will be focused elsewhere, but certainly once the dust settles on elections and so on and so forth, I'd be very keen to hear from members not just their priorities on what the NTS2 should look like, of course, which we all delve into, no doubt, between now and summer 2019, but also if they feel that there should be how we should do public engagement, I'd be very keen to hear from members on that. No doubt in their own geographic and regional areas of interest, but also perhaps wider across Scotland, I'd be very interested in that. There'll be huge amounts of interest in the NTS2, and I think making sure that everybody has an involvement in that is something that I'd be very keen, but really nothing more for me to add. Thank you, minister, and I also should thank you for bearing with us, because we were a little bit late calling you in due to previous work that we were doing. Thank you for bearing with us on that, and that really concludes our committee's business. I'd like to conclude the committee's meeting but ask members to stay behind for a moment afterwards. Thank you very much, minister.