 I would like to welcome everyone to this the seventh meeting of the standards, procedures and public appointments Committee in 2022. I would remind our virtual members to place an hour in the chat function on blue jeans if they would like to come in on any of any of the issues agenda item one is a decision on taking business in private. The first item is whether the community will agree to take agenda item 5 and 6 in private. 5 stipend 5 is correspondence that we have received from the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and agenda item 6 is for us to consider our approach to the report on the citizens assembly. Do members agree to take these items in private? I am grateful for that. Our next agenda item is to deal with the Scottish Local Government elections candidacy rhai o'r Ffordd National's Bill. Rwy'n gweithio i'r George Adam, MSP, Minister for Parliamentary Business, Ian Hockenhall, election's bill team leader, and David MacLennan, who is a solicitor for the Government. I'd like to welcome you this morning, gentlemen, and can I invite you minister to make a short opening speech with regard to the bill? Yes, thank you very much, convener, and good morning to everyone on the committee. I'm grateful for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the Scottish local government elections, Canada's Rights of Foreign Nationals Bill. That bill seeks to ensure compliance with treaties that the UK Government has agreed in relation to voting and Canada's rights in the local government elections. Those treaties have been agreed with Portugal, Luxembourg, Spain and Poland. Present, all foreign nationals, with any form of leave to remain in the United Kingdom, can vote in a Scottish local government election. But Canada's rights are limited to those with indefinite leave to remain or pre-settled status. We anticipate that most EU nationals, currently resident Scotland, already have Canada's rights. The bill is tightly focused upon the treaties that I have mentioned. While our law on voting rights already complies with the treaties, that bill is needed to ensure compliance in relation to Canada's rights. It will do that by extending Canada's rights to any nationals of Portugal, Luxembourg, Spain and Poland, who have a limited form of leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Government's shared policy programme last autumn undertook to develop legislation on electoral reform to enable more people to stand as candidates at the Scottish Parliament and local government elections. I have previously outlined to the committee my intention to consult later this year on a number of electoral reform proposals. I expect that consultation to consider issues surrounding a wider expansion of Canada's rights, for example, all for nationals with limited leave to remain or to 16 and 17-year-olds. I look forward to discussing the bill with the committee, and I am completely happy to answer any questions that members have. Thank you very much, minister. I am very, very brave offer. If I can just kick off a couple of general questions with regard to the bill, the reference is in essence made to treaties that exist between the UK Government and other national countries around Europe. Some of those treaties are not yet in force. Are you concerned that there may be a situation where this bill will come into force, but actually the treaty itself will not be in force, thus triggering the rights? Or do you have confidence that, which I am given to understand, the UK Government is waiting for alignment from across the four nations here, before actually finalising the treaties? Yes. As in many of the answers, I will probably give you today, that will be a UK Government problem and situation to deal with. Are there some concerns over those kinds of things? There are always concerns over that there might be a situation where someone might not be able to put themselves as far as the candidate writes. At the end of the day, the important thing for us to remember is that we have the opportunity in this bill where we will be able to win if the UK does change the treaty, then we will be able to use a statutory instrument to make sure that we can follow suit as well. Is there a chance that someone might have difficulty in being a candidate in the future going through that? There might be, but it will be a small, small percentage. I think that if you look at the percentage of the number of the put-our-names compared to the general population forward for electoral office, then you take the number of individuals that this bill will deal with. It is a small minority. I am not saying that it would not happen, but it is unlikely. If it did happen, it would be an extreme case. Do you still have confidence that using this bill as the vehicle for delivery is the right way to go? That is very helpful. One of the aspects that has been raised in looking at this bill is in relation to who is responsible for ensuring that the candidate can lawfully stand. At the minute, my understanding is that in the election process, an individual would come forward. The authority that the returning officer for an area requires is the declaration that that candidate will sign to say that they can stand as a candidate. Are you happy with that process going forward? If I can perhaps extend that slightly, is that something that you might be looking at with regard to the election bill that I know is being anticipated towards the end of this session? I will take the second question first. My officials will be loving me because every time I appear in committee, I add to it. I think that Ian has already said that it is getting a lot larger than it was previously. However, it is important that we look at all those options with regard to the consultation that we are putting forward and to make sure that when we do come with our election bill in a number of years' time, we have something robust there that we can use in the future. What was your first question again? In essence, at the moment, the responsibility about whether or not a candidate can stand rests with the candidate who signs a declaration and the returning officer relies on that declaration to say that the candidate can go forward. I am just wondering whether you have confidence in that system. Currently—sorry to interrupt, convener—that is a known for us all for putting our names forward and, effectively, that would be the process. I am comfortable with it again to the extent that it will with all the checks and balances that local authorities do when it comes to people putting their names forward for election that we should be in a safe place with that. However, as I have said when I answered your second question first, that is maybe something that we can look at if people do have issues with it. We need to investigate that to see if that is a problem as such. One of the challenges—I raise it in relation to this bill—is that, obviously, it is more likely post an election result than perhaps that position could become apparent, and it is whether or not, given that we are talking about very small numbers of individuals but still they are being given the right to stand in this case under certain circumstances, whether or not that should be just looked at beforehand or whether you are reassured with confidence that that review can wait further down the line? You are second. My final question in relation to this is whether or not you have any concerns that nationals from the same country who are residents here in Scotland will have different candidacy rights entirely dependent on their immigration status? Is that something that concerns you? Again, it is something that is concerning, but it is down to the UK Government and how that individual's rights are and their place within the country at that stage. Yes, it is one of those things that is really outwith the scope of my hands and more to do with the colleagues in the UK Government. In relation to data for local authorities, do you think that there are areas that are more likely to be affected because of a greater number of foreign nationals? Again, Tess, when you look at the numbers that we are looking at, it is a small number of people. If I look at it logically, you would probably say that most people would go into the main urban settlements in Scotland and, as such, they would be in a position where they could probably cope with the demand that that would be. I would say on the whole that, with regard to the actual data, it is very difficult for us to have the data, because when someone comes into the country, they effectively move as they might, they might turn up in Glasgow and end up working in Birmingham or London. We do not tend to keep data on that, but just to give you total clarity on your answer, I will bring in Ian, because Ian might be able to give us some detail on what data we hold. We identified two sources of data in the policy memorandum for the bill, one on nationality, so a snapshot of nationality by people in residence in Scotland. Another one was applications for settled status. The first table is purely based on Scotland. Rather frustratingly, when you look at it, you see that, for England and Wales, there is local government breakdown, but for Scotland it is just one entry and it is five million people. For the settled status information, there is local authority breakdown by Scotland, so we could highlight that to the committee by email or send that over that link if that is useful. Just to summarise, minister, it is not yet, but maybe in future, we will have a better indication of where foreign nationals will reside and if there are issues for local authorities. Again, the answer would be balanced in so much on relation to this actual bill. There are limited number of people who will involve. We have to remember that when we are talking about everything in this bill, but with regards to the data, Ian, do you want to answer that side? Yes, I think that it is just the data that we have is only a snapshot. It is frozen in time, so it tells us where people were a year and a half ago and they may have all moved since then, so it is purely indicative. You could have a situation, Tess, where someone effectively has come into Glasgow and then works in Aberdeen, get a job in Aberdeen, or go to university or whatever in somewhere else, so it is kind of difficult. It happens in normal life. Thank you, Tess. Bob, can I hand over to you? On the minister, just a couple of brief questions this morning. My understanding is that this bill will mean that nationals of Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal and Spain would qualify for candidacy rights under schedule 6A. Nationals are the components within the bill. That is based on UK treaties that have been signed, having been signed or likely to be signed imminently in the future. That does bring the question. I suppose whether the UK Government has indicated that treaties that are conferring reciprocal candidacy rights are likely to be signed with any other EU countries or any other countries at all. In that case, would the bill still be able to cope with our obligations in relation to any new treaties that might be signed? I hope that I will get Mr Doris right or Bob right in this situation where we are saying that if the UK Government expanded the list of countries, as I mentioned earlier on, we would have the opportunity as a statutory instrument to be able to change and include any new treaties that are included in it. Right. That is right. The bill is fit for purpose to cope with that as things stand then. Thank you. I wonder whether the treaties that are signed fall into abeyns or that countries may withdraw from treaties. It is reasonable to ask whether it is open for ministers of Scottish Government to continue to extend such candidacy rights to schedule 6A nationals even when a treaty comes to an end by not exercising the powers and the paragraph 3 of schedule 6A. If the UK Government was to renege the wrong expression, if it were to withdraw from a treaty, would the Scottish Government be keen to ensure that those candidacy rights were not lost and other provisions within the bill to make sure that that can happen? I believe that no matter how keen I or other ministers would be for that to remain the case, the difficulty would be that the bill would have difficulty doing that in so much as it is up to the UK Government and for them to do the treaties. Just as if they create a new treaty, it would be equally possible for us to continue with that country if the UK should decide that that country and that treaty was no longer any more. Right. For my clarity, the support goes where one of the countries mentioned. The Portuguese nationals in Scotland and across the UK, of course, some small number will have additional rights to stand as a candidate in the UK elections and this bill enables that to happen. If that treaty was to be reneged on or be withdrawn from the UK Government, there is nothing in the legislation that would allow you to continue to extend those candidacy rights to the Portuguese nationals in Scotland. We would have to withdraw them or can we sustain those candidacy rights? I feel that I have already answered that, but just to make you feel totally happy with the answer, Bob, I will ask Ian to confirm what I have just said a minute ago. I am sorry, I am cloaked up today. This bill is very much focused on the treaties, so we have taken the view in drafting it that it should only be a reflection of the treaty arrangements, so the expectation is that if a treaty is cancelled, then the obligation would be to withdraw those rights regardless of the policy preference. The reason that there is a slight difference in terminology in the wording of the bill is that it talks about adding countries, it says must, and when it talks about removing countries, it says may, but that is not intended to ensure a discretion. It is merely a transitional thing to ensure that if a treaty is cancelled during an election campaign, we can manage it in such a way as to not disrupt people who have already nominated themselves. That sort of thing is not intended to give a discretion to allow the rights to continue despite the treaty being cancelled. That is very helpful. The minister gave the clarity that I was looking for, so the treaty signed, rights extended, treaties withdrawn, rights are withdrawn. My final question would be the ever-increasing elections bill that will be consulted by the Scottish Government. I would hope that that would extend candidacy rights across all EU nationals in similar situations irrespective of those four treaties. Can you give us an idea of the timing around the elections bill? I mean, every time we ask for something to be added, I suppose it is delayed further, but there we are. We are currently working on the consultation at the moment and, as I mentioned earlier, I am making my officials work harder because I keep adding to it every time. I believe that we will probably look towards that towards the end of this year. Possibly earlier, depending on how we do it. Yes, it depends. I do not add anything further to it, so it is all down to the discipline of the minister. It should be towards the end of the year, maybe sooner. We should have the consultation and then we can move on. As with everything else, it will all be about getting time in the programme for government, whether what year we manage to get this in, but it will definitely be part of this session's programme. That is helpful, minister. I have no further questions. I am just minded to note that perhaps to the discipline of this committee as well, given additional asks that may come forward from us in relation to adding to that consultation that you keep having to readraft before you publish it. I have no further questions, convener. Thank you, Bob. I am not sure we are asking. I think that we have merely pointed out areas where, in particular, I think of consultation, it may be useful and indeed with data. Just really to clarify one point for the purposes of the evidence, this act purely relates to the Scottish local government elections and the no way affects national elections. That is right, isn't it? I am very grateful for that. Edward, I think that you wanted to come in at this stage. Thank you, convener, and good morning, minister. Just to say at this stage that treaties are always between multiple parties, not one party, so I think that the deputy convener may have been at error by saying that if the UK government renaig, it could be the other side that decides to pull out of the treaty, not just the UK government. Minister, if I could just ask you the DPRR to write you a letter on 1 March regarding the whole issue that we are discussing at the moment about may powers and duties, will you be responding to that letter shortly and will it be in a position to see that response because we were copied in the original letter from the DPRR committee? The answer will be brief, Mr Mountain, and it will be yes and yes. When you are responding to that letter, you will be saying that it is a duty for it to remove and it is not just going to be a policy decision to keep people on the list. If they pull out of the treaty stops, that then ends the agreement. I may have misunderstood your question. I was saying that yes, you will get a copy of the letter. Yes, I will be doing it to me. Yes, you will be getting a copy of the letter. With regards, are you talking about what the deputy convener brought up earlier on about? I am indeed, which is the whole point of the letter, which Niddaid, you will have read. No problem. With regard to that, it would be a case of exactly what I said to the deputy convener, regardless of who is the individual or the nation that did the bill out of it. It will be us that we will follow suit in this Parliament. Thank you very much, minister. That is my only question that you will be pleased to know. Thank you, Edward. Again, just for the purposes of clarification, the letter from Stuart McMillan, which was dated 1 March, where I put your civil servants on the spot, they have requested an answer by 8 March. Will that be achievable? I will just double-check with my officials. Thank you very much for that confirmation. Collette, can I turn to you? Thanks, convener. Good morning, minister. I want to touch on the financial implications there. The financial memorandum noted that there could be a cost implication associated with the bill for the local authorities. I am just wondering whether you are open to a continued dialogue with local authorities on the matter of funding for elections, particularly if there is a greater need for bi-elections. It is known that bi-elections come to the region of about £50,000, so if there are bi-elections, it is anticipated that some individuals have limited time to remain. I am sorry if I repeat myself over and over again, but it goes down to the limited number of individuals. You look at the general population and at how many of us put our name forward. Take that to a part of the community that we are talking about here, where there will be a limited number of them that will go forward. Should there be any indiscrepancies and there be a bi-election because of someone who has put their name forward and should not have been in the election, it will be such a tiny amount. I am not saying that it is impossible, but if there was a betting man, I would not be betting on the chances of that happening, but I am not saying that it could not happen in extreme cases, but the numbers are such that it would be very few. On the whole, if you compare it to bi-elections that currently happen in local authorities, I do not think that it would change the number to a greater degree. To give you even further detail and make you feel even better, I will bring in Ian again. One of the reasons that the franchise legislation in 2020 did not extend candidacy rights further was the concern that if someone were elected with limited leave, say two and a half years, and that expired during their term of office, then they would be obliged to resign and they would have bi-election. It is a theoretical possibility that this bill will be allowing people with limited leave to become councillors if they want to. As the minister says, the numbers must be very small. They would have to want to do it, they would have to win the election, they would have to meet the normal tests for standing for local government election, which is a connection of some sort of employment or residence to that community. They would be within this group of not having settled status or pre-settled status who are qualified regardless and have a long lasting leave. They would have to be in this group of having limited leave and be from these four countries. The population figures for those four countries are well, they are in the thousands, they are not high in Scotland. We think that that means that the chances must be quite low, but we cannot be ruled out, which is why we put the information in the financial memorandum. Just quickly on that, so obviously the implication being as well that there is a vacancy arising more than six months of being a local councillor within AEM South Lanarkshire, you have to attend meetings, so if you have not attended any particular meeting, whether it be full council within six months, is there scope there within the bill to maybe amend that? I was going to say that that is where it is, that would say the same, because that is the role of being a local councillor, having been a councillor myself and you. I actually, half of me thinks and you'll agree with me, I call it, why would somebody want to actually be a councillor? It's a hard job for anyone to do, you know, you're literally in the front line of politics, but any individual, I think the important part of this bill is the enabling part of it, if someone does want to do that and does want to represent their community, and in some cases these communities that are maybe small hubs throughout the country, it gives them that opportunity, but it doesn't take away the fact that it is both you and I and others, no, and here it's a difficult job and you're in the front line of politics, you're literally just down the street from many of the individuals that you're representing. Absolutely, it's a vocation, definitely. That's what I keep telling myself anyway, so thanks very much, I have no further questions. I used to have a colleague, councillor Jim Mitchell, councillor in the SNP for 35 years in Renfrewshire, and he used to say at that time it was something like 3 per cent of the population actually get involved in politics, and then we spend the rest of the time just falling out with each other and shouting at each other, and he says, why? Thank you, Collette. I suppose just to follow on, given that we are talking such tiny, tiny potential numbers, but actually the costs that falls on the local authority of a by-election is quite high, would it not be possible, I realise, not necessarily through this bill, but as a piece of open evidence and undertaking for the Government not to consider giving financial support to local authorities in those very, very particular circumstances where, as you say, it is unlikely to occur, but in itself, because it is so unlikely to occur, could cause financial challenges for a local authority if it comes about? My answer to that, convener, would be the fact that it would be very, I would be very surprised if, over the piece, we ended up with a record amount of by-elections in local authorities, and it was in such a case that it was causing financial problems for said authority. Is it something should that, if that ever did happen, would it be something that we would have a watching brief on and possibly look at? Yes, that would be the case, but I really find it difficult for us to see that we would end up with such a mass. It would be interesting if we checked to see how many by-elections on average there are over a period of the whole period. I will endeavour to check that myself and get back to the committee on that detail. On the whole, I would be very surprised but if that did happen, it would be something that I would be keeping an eye on myself. So could it be phrased as, if it occurs, a reasonable request wouldn't be unreasonably refused? Indeed. If we ended up in a place that I don't think we're going to end up. Absolutely, but I think that's why it may be helpful to examine that because it is a very unlikely event, but it is an event that rests completely out with the local authority, with regard to why someone was a candidate at one stage, but then subsequently couldn't occur. I'm grateful for that test. Do you want to follow up? No, I'm good, thank you. Are you all right with that? Any other questions? I have one last question, which really has come out from the evidence that we've heard today, which goes to the policy memorandum, which obviously sits along with the bill. When we look towards the end, the various certifications that are made, one relates to island communities where it's been stated that there's no disproportionate effect on island communities being envisaged. My question really relates to what we've heard in respect of the data. Are you confident with that reassurance given the different level of confidence there is actually over how far this extends and who it captures to, because I think of some island communities and indeed, you know, island communities that have been incredibly open to people moving to the islands from, you know, not just across the United Kingdom, but across the European Union. Really, I'm asking for your confidence that that statement is still correct. I am confident that the statement is still correct, and also when, again, I don't want to labour the point, but when we look at the, I agree with you, there has been many island communities who have embraced people from other parts of the world. But again, when we look at the numbers, I've got a colleague that always says, I always look at the numbers, George, but if you look at the numbers, most people that come to start a new life will be in our main urban population and that will be our main cities, that there will probably be, but I take it on board, but I do, actually, I'm still okay with everything, Isas. That's excellent. There being no further questions, I thank you, Minister, and those that attend with you for your evidence today. We'll consider this matter later. Good morning, and I reconvene this meeting. Our third item for the committee is to consider an application for the recognition of a proposed cross-party group on the wood panel industry. I'm going to welcome Fergus Ewing MSP to this meeting, and Fergus is the proposed convener if the proposed CPG is granted accreditation. Good morning, Fergus. Apologies, Fergus. We're not hearing you at the minute. Is that better? Good morning. We can now hear you. Good morning, Fergus. Could I hand over to you to introduce the CPG? Well, thank you very much, convener, and members, for your time this morning. The cross-party group on the wood panel industry will consider the interests of this important sector, a sector that's very important to the economy of Scotland. There are three main wood panel manufacturers in the UK, namely Norbert, Egger and Cronuspan, and these three companies are the constituent members of the wood panel industries federation, the WPIF, and they operate across six sites located in England, Scotland and Wales. Significant play, three of those sites are in Scotland, Norbert near Inverness, Norbert at Cowie and Egger at Barony. Those member companies operate a business-to-business interface supplying some of the UK's biggest brands, including B&Q, Juicem, Wix and Houdens, to name but a few. Manufactured wood-based and panel products, such as chip boards, oriented strand boards and medium-density fibre boards, can be identified in virtually every home, office and shop and are extensively used in the construction, furniture making, packaging and transportation industries. The wood panel industry makes a significant contribution to the UK economy and is disproportionately important to Scotland due to half of the industry being located here. Wood panel manufacturers play an important role in the Scottish economy, helping to support regional employment and local supply chains. In 2018, the average salary of those employed in the industry was £36,235, and the industry is a strong track record of investing in local communities, for example, through successful apprenticeship schemes. Forestry investment is key to ensuring the sustainable growth of the industry. The UK Government has set a target for planting 30,000 hectares a year by 2024, with England committed to delivering 7,000 hectares, Wales expecting to deliver up to 4,000 hectares per annum. Scotland is very much leading the way in terms of ambition with our own target to plant 18,000 hectares per annum. One of the key purposes of this group will be to discuss and explore the wood security challenge and to encourage England and Wales to raise their ambitions for tree planting. The sector is working hard to play its role in contributing to net zero aims through the decarbonising of manufacturing processes and role of wood panelling products in carbon sequestration. That will be another key area for the group to examine. The group intends to work closely with the Wood Panel Industries Federation in order to gain a detailed understanding of the challenges facing the sector. The WPIF will act as the group's secretariat, ensuring a clear link with industry partners. At the group's initial meeting, there were cross-party attendants from members across Scotland. Alongside myself, as a proposed convener, we have two elected deputy conveners, namely Stephen Kerr, MSP, Conservative and Colin Smyth MSP Labour. The next step for the group will be to agree our policy priorities. We will do that in consultation with the WPIF. Our intention will be to draw up policy recommendations to the Scottish Government in order to inform our engagement with the Scottish Government ministers. At Westminster, there is already an all-party parliamentary group for the wood panel industry. We will also look for opportunities to work with them in order to influence the UK Government as well. Many thanks for the opportunity to set out this brief description of this very important industry to Scotland. Thank you very much for that. Are there any questions from the committee? Tess? Thank you, convener. Thank you, Fergus. Just two questions, if I may. What is your view as convener of the current threats facing the industry? I would say that the industry has been doing pretty well. It has been an industry where there has been very substantial investment. That means, for example, that the Norwood plant, which is in my constituency, is one of the most modern in the whole of Europe and is able to operate very efficiently in terms of the modern plant that has recently been installed there with an investment that is well in excess of £100 million. I would say that my understanding is that the industry has been doing fairly well of late. The challenge is to answer your question facing it. I would say that the risk of continuing high energy costs, as it obviously is, is a fairly energy-intensive exercise. In addition to that, labour shortages in some areas are a challenge for many employers, as members will appreciate. On a wider macro stage, the companies do business primarily in the UK, but also have an interest in purchasing materials and doing business with mainland Europe. Obviously, we know that currently there is considerable uncertainty facing the geopolitical situation there. I have one more question, if I may, Fergus Ewing. Will he be touching upon a very delicate issue of tree planting on arable land? I think that we will look at the issue from the perspective of the industry. The perspective of the industry is that it requires a continuous reliable supply of raw material, namely timber of a certain quality. The reason why we have these plants in Scotland is that they are located in areas that are close to areas of large afforestation of commercial species. I know that, because I was formerly forestry minister, in consideration of applications for consent for planting of trees, there is presumption that prime arable land should not be deployed for tree planting. That issue is a matter for the Scottish Government relevant ministers in concerns, but I also know that there is ample scope in Scotland for more afforestation, but, plainly, the forestry standards that were developed in the mid-1990s are applicable here to prevent, if you like, the mistakes that were made in the 80s when trees were planted in heavy peats on very steep land that is inaccessible for felling or for even maintaining. I think that the system of making sure that the right tree is planted in the right place is a very sound and mature and developed one in Scotland. I think that the group will look very closely at how working together with the farmers, crofters, land managers, landowners, agents, contractors, nurseries and, indeed, the colleges, we can ensure that the targets are met. It is very important, because only if the industry has this continuous, steady supply of commercial species wood and timber will they be able to continue to grow. By continuing to grow, of course, they increasingly will be building new houses made of wood, rather than concrete or brick, and I think that that must be good news for net zero and for environmental aims and something that I think that many people in Scotland would like to see, although we are a wee bit further ahead in Scotland in the use of wood for house construction. I think that our main focus initially will be to look at the issue of how can the Scottish Government best meet its target of 18,000 hectares, but within that to make sure that there is a sufficient supply of commercial species in order to continue to provide the feedstock for this very important sector of the economy. I am sure that the businesses involved will be very grateful for the member's interests, the member's own interests. I hope that she may and others may consider joining the group. Obviously, we would like more people to come along. It is really a modern success story in Scotland, and it is fitting that it should be the subject of more detailed parliamentary work with the object of enabling it to achieve even more. Good morning, Fergus. I have to admit that I am no expert as we seem to come upon the wood parallel industry in Scotland, but I was looking at the papers that were submitted. It did not seem slightly unusual, because I do not know the sector that we can list the organisations involved in the cross-party group that says that the wood parallel industry federation and the victim public affairs are normally cross-particles. A whole host of organisations and stakeholders come forward in the partner cross-party group, and that does seem quite limited. Fergus said that there are three main wood parallel manufacturers in the UK, who are also based in Scotland, and they are the key stakeholders within the wood parallel industry federation. However, what I was interested to know is that, within the wood parallel industry, are there other players? Are there smaller manufacturers that might have a voice that might take a different perspective on things? I have no idea where large timber merchants fit into that. Any more information that you can provide would be really welcome. I will roll my two questions together for time constraints. Anything that you can say on that would be really helpful. Is there a role? I was listening to answer some questions there. Most consumers—most Scots—do not think about the supply and sustainability of wood. We do not think about the economic contribution or the job creation that it involves, and we do not think about the employment. Is there a wider mission there to see more for wedges like myself who just pitch up and buy their furniture and the like to learn more about the sector more generally and the contribution that makes to the economy? That last point about spreading awareness and knowledge of the sector in Scotland in general is very well made. That has certainly been one that has already been put and discussed in the initial discussions that we have had on the proposed cross-party group at our first meeting. I think that if more people were aware, for example, that Sitka Spruce, a species that is much maligned in Scotland, is an invaluable building material for the houses that everybody knows we need, then perhaps people's views may be warm to this excellent species. I am sure that, as Mr Mountain will well know, it is well suited to being planted in the Scottish temperate climate. Its qualities for construction use are of a high standard, making it an invaluable part of the forestry composition in Scotland. Therefore, the group can get the message across that, as well as being good for the planet, forestry is also a vital source material. Commercial species are a vital source material for the construction sector. Weeding is away from brick and concrete block housing to timber housing. Of course, in continental Europe, Scandinavia, there are miles ahead of us in the use of wood. The second question tells us a bit more about the sector. The panel product sector is part of the larger commercial timber sector in Scotland. They are represented by a trade body confor. They are not part of the group, but we will work closely with them. They would include companies such as BSW, James Jones, Glenans and Gordon in my constituency. If there were smaller panel products manufacturers, I know that there are not. The reason is that, in order to produce panel products, you require substantial capital investment. You cannot really do it on a small scale. For it to work, it has to be on a large scale. I mentioned the scale of the investment that Norbord had made in Dahlcross in excess of £100 million. Of course, there is an important supply chain. It is important for the whole rural economy because it supports tree planting, tree growing, the support of the nurseries. It is part of the overall timber sector in Scotland, which is moving from being a Cinderella in the economy to becoming more centre stage and, largely for environmental reasons now, but also because of the contribution that they make to construction and the areas such as furniture making and specialist applications. I hope that we will make sure, as Mr Doris has perhaps implied, that we bring on board others who have something to contribute to the discussion. For example, firms that are involved in in commercial firms in the business of processing applications for forestry consent will be useful to inform the debate about how we make sure that there is sufficient supply of commercial timber as a proportion of that 18,000 hectares per annum and to build up a consensus that there needs to be a further stability and a long-term approach to forestry. If you think about it, when you plant a tree, there is no income for 30 or 40 years. That sets it apart from many other industries. It is a long-term business. Norbord, Egger and Cronuspan would not be in Scotland if it was not for the fact that we have been able to satisfy them that we are aware of their needs for a long-term, secure, continuous planting of commercial species in Scotland. Very helpful, Mr Gregg. No further questions. Thank you, Bob, and thank you, Fergus. Are there any other questions from in the room? Can I thank you for attending today, Fergus? The committee will consider whether to approve the application for recognition at agenda item 4, and the clerks will inform you of that decision thereafter. I thank you for your presentation today and answering the wide and varied questions on it. Indeed, for the committee now to consider whether to accord recognition to the proposed cross-party group wood panel in