練odd, wrth gwaith y ddweud i ddangosiosweidio naill y geradol iawn gyntaf gwn如果你 Cymru? Felly, ddwy'n ddweud yn y pethau'r ddiolch cymdeithasol, ac rwy'n ddych chi'n bwysig addysg am yr hyn yn ei ddweud i'r cyllid cy shirtsioswyr i'r ddweud i ymherwydd y Llanyddiaid. Rwy'n mynd i'n bwysig i ddweud i'r cy electronics cy rattlyensitive a'r prif sydd rwy'n edrych yn ei ddweud i gynnwys y porthog ddyliadau. The first item on the agenda is the Forestry and Land Management Scotland Bill. This is our second evidence session on the bill, and we will be having two panels today. The first panel, and welcome to you all, consists of Stuart Goodall, the chief executive of CONFOR, Brendan Burns, a harvesting contractor for the Forestry Contractors Association, Malcolm Nicoll, managing partner at Belogia State's Enterprise, Hamish McLeod, director of public affairs at BSW Sawmills, and Ian Thomas, a chartered forester. We have various themes that we are going to be developing during the course of the discussion today, which will be introduced by different members. Can I ask you if you want to speak on it, and you do not have to speak on every theme if you do not want to, to try and catch my eye? I will then try and bring you in. Can I also remind you to occasionally look at me, because if you start expanding on points beyond the time that we have available, I will try to signal to you to come to an end, rather than just having to cut you off, which is always embarrassing. I will also remind you that you do not need to press your microphones on the panels in front of you, that your microphones will be activated as you are called to speak. The first theme will be developed by John Finnie. Good morning, panel, and thanks very much for your contributions. The first theme that we are going to look at is the development of the bill, and the key to that is the role that the consultation played in the process. That took place in August of last year. I appreciate your views specifically on two issues. That is the management of land by Scottish ministers and the issue of felling, and the extent to which they were covered by the consultation, please. You would like to go first on that. Oh, you are all looking very... I am sorry, if you are not going to volunteer, Stuart, you can start with that. I suppose that the hesitancy in starting to speak is that we have been operating or approaching this on the basis that the legislation around felling is not going to fundamentally change, and we cannot see that there is a reason to fundamentally change it, and we are not aware of any pressures to fundamentally change it. Rightly or wrongly, we have been operating on the basis that what is coming forward and what will come forward in secondary legislation will be to maintain, essentially, the status quo. I hope that that is a correct assumption on our part, but time will tell. Oh, sorry. In terms of the consultation, we did not come by... Sorry, in terms of the bill, yes. In terms of the bill, yes, and the definition being put forward, then we are looking at it and saying it isn't necessarily the correct definition because it's talking about intentionally killing a tree, and it sounds a bit of a nerdy point here, but if you fell a broadleaf tree, that doesn't kill it, even if you cut it at the stump. It can re-sprout and, in fact, there's coppicing a whole industry based around that, so we think that that definition itself would need to be revisited. On the land management side, John, do you want to ask anyone in particular? Well, specifically your views. Of course, maybe your views are that you are very content with the level of consultation on that and what the outcome was. If it was, then there's no issue. Obviously, consultation is a key element of the whole process, and there were lots in the act that were actually... It was basically no change, and I've never appeared before one of these committees before, so I watched the one that you had previously, and one of the themes was that really there's no change from the previous act. There were certain areas where people had serious concerns about a drastic change in the forestry that were envisaged, but there were other areas where it was pretty much as Stuart was saying, business as usual, so there were no concerns. If there's no issues with the management of the land or particularly on felling, the wider programme of devolution includes, not including the wood bill, areas such as cross-border arrangements and new organisational arrangements. Any comments on that? Stuart and then followed by Hamish. I mean, certainly for us, the cross-border arrangements are very important, and we understand why they're not necessarily covered in the bill, but what we have said in our response is we're looking at what is included in the bill in the context of how do we co-ordinate with other parts of the UK, for example, on plant health, because as we know, disease, pests and don't respect boundaries, the issue of forest research, for example, is extremely important to the sector as well as is the collection and dissemination of statistical information. At the moment, for example, investment in the sector is predicated on understanding the future availability of wood across rather wide geographical areas and across boundaries. For example, the south of Scotland and north of England is essentially one geographical unit in terms of the supply and processing of timber. Having that co-ordination and the ability to collect that type of information and work together across countries is very important to us. What we would like to see as part of the process of the bill is that, at the same time, we're kept informed of what's happening in terms of the cross-border situation so that we can see this bill as part of a package. Yes, I concur with what Stuart Scott said just now, but, in addition to that, I think that we're looking at assuming a post-Brexit world and the global position of forestry in Scotland and, indeed, the United Kingdom. It's a sense of scale that forest research actually offers. It's a very small agency within Forestry Commission at the moment, and I think that when you look at it, if it was divided two ways, three ways, it becomes so small and insignificant. There's a danger of it becoming so insignificant that it actually gets lost somewhere within that melee. I think that it's very important that the UK has a strong position in forest research for all the reasons that Stuart Scott said. I think that it's appropriate to raise this here because it's about the bill and the construction of it. I'm just looking at the note that Conforor provided to us today, Mr Goodall. In particular, you're suggesting that there should be a chief forester for Scotland, and, of course, that's something that's not in the bill. I just wondered—indeed, you go on and say that ministers should commit to designating key professional posts. I must say that I'm slightly cautious about ministers doing that, but that's a different issue, which I won't bother about. Why do you think that having a chief forester is something that the bill should address? It may be others who want to comment as well. For us as an organisation, among some membership, a very broad membership along the supply chain across Scotland, we're also aware of speaking with people from different interests outside of industry, environmental organisations and others. There is a lot of support for the idea that if we're going to regulate and support the sector, forestry is quite a technical issue. Everybody who operates in an industry thinks that their industry and what they do is very important, very difficult and challenging task. I think that if we just go to look at, in forestry, where the Government has—or through Government, the Forestry Commission and those people regulating the sector—have a great deal of influence over how we establish forests, how we manage them, how we harvest them. If you look at the guidance that they're working against, the UK Forestry stand and all the supporting guidance, it's six or seven or eight inches of documentation. With that level of engagement and influence and the level of detail that they have to work with, for us it's important that the people doing that are suitably qualified, that they are professional foresters, that they understand the issues. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for them to be able to effectively speak to people in the private sector who are professional foresters, who understand all that, who have been through three or four years of training, of further education, to be able to have that respect and to have that influence. Can I just cut across you slightly because I don't want to make a big meal of this? Are you suggesting something like the chief scientist, who has no executive role in Government, but is clearly a senior and respected adviser to Government and to the part of Government and so on? Is that the model that you're looking at or are you looking at somebody in an executive role? I suspect that it's the former rather than the latter, but it would be helpful. It's certainly—yes, in terms of definition, the former role is what we're looking at. For us, it feeds on from the point about being able to have that sort of professional forestry expertise in place. Yes, you're right, we've used the term minister's loosely. Essentially, it's having somebody in a position to make that happen, but I think that it would be important for the operation of regulation and support and for the respect and working relationship, the private sector. If you have those people in post and there's somebody seen to be championing and taking a lead for forestry within Scottish Government as a whole. I'm going to bring Hamish in and then Brendan if I may say. Thank you. I'm speaking with a slight experience and I served six years as chairman of the Forest Commission Scotland's national committee, so I've actually seen forestry, if you like, at that level as well, from both sides. It's something that we debated often, actually, within the national committee. I'm sure that, two years, three years on, it's still being so. I think that what we need in Scotland or what we recognise in Scotland is somebody to be an advocate for forestry. I think that that is vitally important. I don't mean a figurehead, but an advocate for forestry, somebody who's actually going to push forestry and actually drive some ambition and aspiration within the Forestry Act as well. We've got some very ambitious planting targets, for example, and we've got a number of deficiencies in terms of restocking issues and so on. We need somebody really to focus on that and say, right, okay, this is what we're trying to achieve for Scotland. Brendan, before you come in, maybe you'd like to think about whether the long-term nature of forestry maybe makes that position more important as well rather than a shorter term political appointment, Brendan? As far as we would be concerned, I should clarify, contractors are the people that are working in the forests. We have a slightly different scenario from Confort in as much as what we see is the practical end of the operation. What we find at the moment is that our practical aspects of forestry has been lost. We talk to senior people within the Forestry Commission and we are talking to people who do not even understand what we do. Yes, everybody recognises a machine, but I had a discussion with a senior member of the Forestry Commission the other day and I was actually pointed out what the wage of a machine operator is, over £40,000 a year. They didn't realise it. They didn't realise the cost of these machines are now £350,000, and that's for a basic, that's one machine. We'd certainly support much more technical knowledge at the top, because at this moment we're talking to a brick wall. When we have written to ministers and to other senior people within the Parliament, we get an answer back from the Forestry Commission which basically says, thank you very much for your letter, now will you go away? We have a serious problem in forestry, irrespective of what this bill says. We are hitting a cliff edge in eight years. We have no operators. Everybody knows about this. I've been talking about it for 20 years and the Forestry Commission has done nothing about it. For the life of me, I don't understand, but technically they didn't seem to understand what was actually happening. Our operators are getting older and leaving and if there's nobody to cut and extract the timber, there will be no forestry industry, there will be no £1 billion and we will be in a mess. Okay, so you support, I think, an advocate for forestry. Malcolm, do you want to come in on that and then, if I may, we might move on to the second theme. Very quickly, because I'd rather come to the Saban or the Brendan. I mean, we've always had very good relationships with the local conservancy. Alone, of the government agencies, I know, always know who the field officer is, who I relate to. You have the field officer, you have the operations officer, you have the conservator, you know, and it's clear cut and simple and straightforward. Beyond that, I've never really had an understanding of how forestry in Scotland is administered. One level I don't need to, but with regard to trying to sort of, as I said, I have never had to scrutinise into legislation previously, thankfully, but when you start to look, it does bring open to questions. I think there's an opportunity here to actually clarify the lines of organisation of administration, because as Brendan touches on, there are some very, very significant challenges to the forest industry. There's great opportunities, but we've got to face up to the challenges, and I do think that there needs to be a clear structure which operates and actually runs the course, because forestry has been kicked around and different schemes and different focuses. One of the things that I must say, there should hopefully cross-party support for a structure that is clear and that we know who we're relating to and does have, shall we say, the right qualified people in the right places. Thank you. I think we'll look out for that theme as we move through the consultation. Peter, do you want to move on with the next one? Good morning, gentlemen. My questions are around about part two of the bell and part two, which speaks about the modernisation of the forestry functions, about bringing the forestry act 1967 up to date. My first question is, what is your view of the modernisation of the forestry functions in this bell, and does it go far enough in your view? I don't know who that's due. Who'd like to start that? I'm nervous always about letting Stuart go first, because he then gets to say more. I will in this occasion, but I will look to everyone else, please. I have a deserve a reputation for being a bit mouthy, both in the private sector as well as in the forum. I've never said that. In terms of modernisation, it clearly makes sense when you have legislation, which was established 50 years ago for a very different time, based on legislation back in 1919 when we were in very different circumstances. There are things in here that we look at, which we like. For example, we now have a well-understood concept of sustainable forest management. When we are operating in forestry, it's not just about trying to get as many trees into the ground to cover every square inch of a single species as much as we can. As a sector, as a private industry, we moved on from that nearly 30 years ago. Therefore, it's good to have recognition that forestry is an activity that balances both production with care for the environment and working with people. That kind of thing is useful. It's also good that we try and strip out a lot of all the text and everything that was in the 1967 bill that was quite difficult to read. I have to confess that I tried to read it one or two times and gave up. That makes things simpler from that point of view. I wouldn't say that, in terms of modernising or trying to bring it into the 21st century, it captures everything that we would like to see. For example, in the past, there was a clear recognition that we wished to increase our forestry resource. In the 20th century, that was because we needed a strategic resource in times of war. Now, in the 21st century, we faced different challenges, but there are still challenges where forestry is a significant solution. For climate change, we recognise that planting trees is vital for going to meet our ambitious climate change targets. We are talking about moving to 15,000 hectares a year by 2024-25. We also know very well that forestry is becoming an effective local industry, providing well-paid skilled jobs. As we look post Brexit, there is more of an opportunity for forestry and farming to be working together to be supporting green vibrant rural areas. Therefore, we think that it makes sense that there is recognition of the need for the benefits of expanding the forestry resource, both to secure those benefits for the rural community, to support the rural industry, because we know that there is going to be a different supply and also for climate change. That sort of ambition we feel is missing from this bill. It talks about good management and regulation and effective and developing strategies, but it does not have any ambition. That is where we think that it is a significant missing element from the bill. I was going to say, do you want to bring in the other questions, which I think you have got lined up on the basis that it might bring other members of the panel in? No, I was going to do exactly that, convener. Since you mentioned sustainable forestry, forest management, Stuart, do you think that the bill changes any of that thinking within the industry? You say that it is SFM that is well understood and that we have been doing it for the past 30 years. Is there anything in the bill that might change any of that thinking going forward from here? We do not see anything at the moment that may change that, but the lack of any definition of it in the bill is a missed opportunity for two reasons. One is that it enshrines it, so there is clarity in it as it is, but also because what we would not wish to see is that without that clarity in there, groups may look at this and say, what is this bill about? What does sustainable forest management mean? If you have got the definition in there and I appreciate from evidence given previously to the committee that there is a reluctance to put in definitions where it is felt it is relatively well known and understood, but this bill is all about sustainable forest management right there in the first sentence. There is an accepted definition, which is in the company guidance, so we feel that putting that in there would be a useful point just to provide clarity. Anyone else like to comment? Ian, do you want to come in on that? Obviously there is the issue of sustainable forestry versus sustainable development and there is a differentiation there that needs to be drawn perhaps because they are more involved with other land uses perhaps and other wider issues that needs to be defined. I think that there is a sustainable development aspect perhaps. Can I just add another bit to the whole thing? Stuart said, lamented the fact that there was no ambition in the bill, but the bill does require ministers to prepare and publish a forestry strategy. Perhaps within that forestry strategy, that ambition statement could be there, Stuart. My question is, would you like to see the bill state that particular issues must be included in the forest strategy? It has been a fine document and it is a great thing for the Scottish timber industry and forestry generally. Again, carrying on business as usual in terms of that statement and having it written into the act is a positive step. As Stuart says, it is widely understood that it has impacts on the ground and it makes a real difference to how forests are managed, so it is a good thing, I think. Brendan, do you want to come in on that? It was actually when we had our discussions within the FCA, it was an area that people just kept saying, well, what does it say? It actually makes it very difficult for us to then respond because we are practical people, that is what the contractors do. We sometimes feel that, on this particular issue, we had no comment, but we have a lot to say about it, but we were unsure as to how, in fact, we should then address that particular issue. The result was that we did not. A simple example that was raised at our meeting was the variations. Forestry has looked upon as being one industry for the whole of Scotland. Forestry in the Highlands is not the same as the forestry down the borders. Forestry in the North East and Arboyn is entirely different altogether. This sort of document was difficult to respond to, but that does not mean that we do not have opinions about it. A strategy might help. Malcolm, do you want to come in on that? It is not just you nodding that the strategy is different across different parts of Scotland. It is an obvious statement. Scotland is an incredibly diverse country in all sorts of ways. You only travel a fairly short distance. From the forest perspective, there are very different issues. You just have to go from the north side of the Cairn to the south, and you are in very different conditions. That is one of the problems about constructing a forest strategy in policy for Scotland as a whole that treats everyone fairly and equally, because you have to be aware of the regional differences. I want to raise a backup. What I find difficult not being somebody who scrutinised legislation before is that you get statements that we have on forest strategy. The Scottish ministers must produce sustainable forest management, which covers masses of things, and then there are pages of detail on felling licences. There seems to be a mismatch here. I share Brendan's point about when you are trying to respond rationally and comprehensively to this, what points do you drill into and what points do you don't? After all, sustainable forest management means a lot of different things to different people. My specific point on this, which is very important and is missing, is that I think that somewhere there should be a duty on Scottish ministers on the kind of educational training promotion side. There is a lot of good work, for instance at Napier University, about the use of wood, but I do not think that it is getting through to the public as a whole. If you are talking about looking forward and sustainable Scotland, Timbers has got a very big part to play. I think that Scottish ministers somewhere should have a role in promoting that. That may be outside the scope of the bill, but I just felt that it was a relevant comment. An interesting and important point Stuart wants to make. Just a relatively small point. Malcolm, you are quite properly pointing to some things that are dealt with in the legislation at a high level, some in great detail, filling in particular in great detail. If it is in the bill, it takes a long time to change it and amend it. If it is in secondary legislation, in other words, dealt with elsewhere, we can change it fairly quickly. Are you in consequence of what you are saying, suggesting that perhaps the filling bit of it, which is highly detailed, should be taken out of the primary legislation and put in secondary without changing the legal effect so that it can be adapted over time? Is that the effect of what you are saying, or is it just a general observation that you wish that it was easier to read legislation, which you might get quite a lot of support for? It was a general comment in times of trying to get one's head round about where this legislation sits with other legislation. For an amateur, primary and secondary in what goes where. Is filling licences really appropriate in a bill of this sort? I would question that, and I think that it is something that is better handled under secondary. I think that that is again something that we can build on. Stuart, yours is the next theme. Mine is fairly brief and Stuart Goodall has already referred to. It is just on health and civic culture material, which will now essentially be in one place, covering both the Plant Health Act and, to some extent, the Plant Variety and Seeds Act of 1964. Is that a provision that members of the panel support, or do you have another alternative way in which those things should be dealt with? Everyone is looking away, except for Stuart. Stuart, you get the floor again. When you deserve a response, it is something that, as it is, we support and we do not see any problems with it. In that case, I am finished, convener. Okay, fine. The next theme is from the deputy convener, Cal Ross. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. You will be delighted to know that I am going to go back to sustainable forest management. In section 9, it says that forestry land must be managed in a way that promotes sustainable forest management, whatever that means to certain individuals. Do you think that there are any differences on the ground that section 9 will make, and would you like to see any changes to it, or is it okay as it is? I am looking at you, Ian, as a practitioner. I think that it does cover the... As I said, it is well understood, so I think that that is adequate, and it should not really change anything on the ground. There is a concern, I think, that, with the wider remit and it coming under the ministers, that sustainable development might trump sustainable forestry management. I think that is a concern, because that could mean that deforestation takes place when there is, for instance, a big financial incentive for that to occur. There is a concern that the clear message of what the commission has achieved over the years, and it is 100 years old, nearly that of focusing on forestry and really pushing that and being an advocate and a facilitator for forestry, will be lost because other things have come in. Stuart, do you want to add to that, and I know that Gail has got a subsequent question there? If I can do it, Gail, you asked specifically about sustainable forest management, and then broader in section 9.3. In terms of sustainable forest management, the comments made previously, for me, sustainable forest management is the description of a process, it is how you produce an outcome, it is a balanced process, and therefore the outcome is intended to be what is appropriate for the local circumstance, because you have engaged with economic interests, social interests and environmental interests, so it is a flexible mechanism, but there is a lot of guidance that is helping you to achieve that outcome and what that means for forestry. Where it is referred, we are quite relaxed, but picking up on Ian's point, in section 9.3, which refers to land, as we describe it, owned and or managed by Scottish ministers. It is part of part 3, and if part 3 was designed to tie up Comfort staff and try to understand what it meant for ours, then Scottish Government officials would be incredibly successful. We think that we have a head round it, but mainly because we have read the evidence that has been given and we have asked questions, and we think that we are 95 per cent of the way there. On section 9.3, what we are concerned with is that, at the moment, we would look at public forestry land, so the national forest estate plus land that is brought in as being primarily there for forestry and managed for sustainable forestry purposes. We are aware that Scottish ministers, Simon Hodge, who runs national forestry estate, would like to be able to use that land for wider purposes than just forestry. That is understood, and we recognise that 200,000 hectares of the national forest estate are not actually covered in trees. There are 30,000 hectares of actively managed agricultural land, therefore it makes sense to say that that can be managed for a purpose other than sustainable forest management. However, the way that it is drafted seems to imply that the forest land need not be managed for sustainable forest management. The evidence given on June 7, I think that by Carl Barkham and Rowe, said that the land can be managed for sustainable forest management or sustainable development, and that did not differentiate between land that has trees on it, which we would call forestry, or is land adjacent to that forest, and land that has clearly nothing to do with forest. Therefore, somebody could manage that forest for sustainable development purposes rather than sustainable forest management purposes, and what we have seen in the past is that huge areas of forest were cleared for wind farms on the public estate. This appears to give Scottish ministers, whoever manages the national forest estate, the potential to say, actually, I can earn more money by doing all these other things other than having trees. I am basically going in time to clear all the trees away. That is that kind of lack of clarity or safety nets, which for us are very concerning. There is an ambiguity in what the sections of the land are set aside for, and how they are going to be managed. In section 10B, it mentions other land and forestry land. Given what you have said, it is not clear what sections of the land are—other land or forestry land or land for trees, if you like. What you have set out there is the same head-scratching approach that we have had over the past week. Would you like to see more clarity over what the land is set aside for? What we have said in our submission eventually is that we think that it would make a lot of sense and be very helpful rather than describing all land as forestry land, even if it is an active farm, that, just because it is owned or managed by the Scottish ministers through forestry and land Scotland, as it will become. Instead, you define forestry land as forestry land and land associated with a forest unit. If it is land that is not associated with forestry, it is other land. Then you can apply sustainable development practices to land which is not forestry. Our second guessing of government—and it is always a danger to second guess—is that there are provisions elsewhere in this part for land to be purchased for the purposes of sustainable development, which themselves have no relationship to forestry. It appears to me as though you have two parallel strands. Would it not make it simpler that, when you are talking about sustainable development activity, it does not relate to forestry, where it is forestry, it relates to sustainable forest management, and then we would understand what on earth is happening or could happen. I am quite keen to bring Claudiar in as well. Maybe I will take one more. If Ian was first, then I am going to bring Claudiar in. It is a very short point. There is a linking point here, which is about forestry, basically, as we all understand, being a long-term business. What the forestry commission has achieved over the past 100 years has been a result of the arms-length working of the forestry commission having a buffer between the politicians and the forestry commission, which has facilitated its long-term role and has been fantastic for forestry. Linking to the ambiguity on whether the land is to be managed for forestry or other things is the issue of direct ministerial control and whether a structure that buffered that and did not allow political expediency to have a huge impact on forestry would perhaps be a worthwhile thing to consider. Claudiar, would you like to come in at this stage? That is kind of a convener. It is to do with part three, but some of them are about section 13 and beyond as well. They sort of lead into each other, so I do not know if you would prefer it if the deputy convener continued. I do not know what her line of questioning is, so I do not want to—she may well be wanting to ask questions. Well, 13 is next, so what I might do is, if Gail, you are happy— Well, I know that there is another theme along compulsory, so I will let someone else deal with that. I think that the committee members asked the questions, and then it is not, I would comment. What I would like to do now is bring Jamie in, because it naturally feeds on to where you were going, Jamie. Thank you, convener. Yes, I think that conversation that we have been having leads nicely into where I was going to pick up, and that is around section 13 of the bill, which relates to management of land and to further sustainable development. In the last session that we had on this, the Scottish Government stated, and it would be helpful for me if I just read this out quickly, because it will put some context into the section. The purpose of section 13 is to fulfil policy that, through the new agency, Scottish ministers should have a broader land management role moving away from a silo approach of purely managing forestry. It also states that land under section 13 is not forestry land, it is other land. The purpose for which it should be managed is sustainable development. Is the panel clear, first of all, what this other land is? If it is not forestry land, it is being designated as other land, before we move on to the sustainable development aspects of it. In general, if you have any specific views on section 13, now would be a good time to share them. Students have a fairly good bash at that. Does somebody else, Hamish, like to come in on that? I do not know what this other land could be if it is sustainable development in many respects, but I think that going back to the basis of what is the sustainable forestry land, if you like, is that having witnessed the loss of so much land from forestry into other developments, wind farm developments and so on, over the last few years, our sector, our business, would be horrified to lose any more land from forestry. Somewhere in this bill, we should actually be setting out, almost like a de minimus, that we start off with the forest land that we have and that we should not actually be looking at diminishing that. In fact, we should be building on that as per Government policy. I think that we need to have some sort of bottom line, if you like, before we even start. Brendan, you wanted to come in on that. I repeat a comment that was made. Does that mean that the forestry organisations become the forestry tourist board? That was the issue that was raised because other land tourism suddenly starts sprouting up. Tourism is an extremely attractive industry. It gives very high returns for not enough of the work. There is a genuine fear that the forestry industry could lose its vision if that side of it becomes too strong. If we and Stuart, who are all members of Confort, pay them to get the staff to go through this, if they have difficulty trying to understand this, my question is always, when it gets further down the line, is anybody else going to understand it? It is really difficult when you are trying to put all the different aspects into this particular paper. Do you want to follow up and then I would like to bring Claudio in? I guess that following on from that, my interpretation of this is, again, I am struggling with this too, is that land that is currently forestry land could be purchased by the Government either through commercial acquisition or compulsory purchasing and then converted to be used for other reasons such as, quote, sustainable development. Now, the Scottish Government stated that it did not want to define what sustainable development is because it felt that that was dealt with by case law, but some of the consultation responses stated that you do want that to be defined, otherwise it does leave it far too open-ended. Does anyone agree or disagree with that? Can I just say, before you answer the question, don't please major on the compulsory purchase bit because that's going to come up later, so I don't want to cut across your answers for that, but I'm going to take Stuart and then I'm going to bring Claudio in and then I'll take other one, so Stuart. Yeah, certainly. I'll leave aside the issue of the rights and wrongs of compulsory purchase. Quite simply, after going through this for a length of time, we look at section 13 and effectively see it as a standalone activity, which is separate from forestry, so it's the ability to acquire or purchase land, which is not necessarily forestry and probably isn't forestry, and then not do anything related to forestry, so it's a land provision, non-forestry land provision. From our point of view, as a forestry organisation, we can say, well, there's almost like a piggybacking of this provision within the rest of the bill, which is all about forestry, and therefore we can put that to one side. But the inclusion of sustainable development as a term in then in 93 is where it gives us concern because, at that point, it brings that term and its impact into forestry land. Once you start looking at the national forest estate as being all land, suddenly being classified as forestry land, and then there's purchasing of land, which is not forestry land but may be used for forestry land, that's when we just got ourselves tied up in knots because we cannot entirely separate and we don't think that there's a separation, although the evidence seemed to imply there was between a simple process of acquiring land for sustainable development and then having nothing to do with forestry. That seemed to be what I was saying, but it wasn't actually specifically said in the evidence. Sorry, I'm going to stop you there because I'd like to, I think you've made the point very clearly on that. Claudia, would you like to come in? Thank you, convener, and good morning to the panel. It's really building on the previous questions, and I wonder if the panel actually sees any need for the Scottish Government to have new powers to further sustainable development in the context of this bill, and if any of you can think of any examples where it would be appropriate to use the powers in section 13. As a quick additional question with the convener's forbearance, where does agroforestry fit into this? Who would like to, I mean, that's quite, it might be a quick question, there may be a long answer, but if we could keep the answers short, Ian, if I could perhaps bring in. On the first question, that actually basically the powers are all there. It's the old theme of if it isn't broken, don't bother fixing it, because actually forestry in Scotland is a tremendous excess story, and it's a totally functional thing as is delivered now. On the second point, agroforestry, there's no, I mean, there is a thing that's promoted by the Forestry Commission at the moment by having done agriculture and forestry, I would be greatly in favour of it having higher profile. It is in the present grant system, which is varying off the bill a bit, but so it's there at the moment, but that would be a simple, to promote that would be a simple thing of increasing grant rates or promoting it more widely within the grant system. Anyone else want to give a quick answer to that? Stuart, I'll let you in. Very quickly, as a forestry organisation, we don't have anything specific to do with sustainable development purchasing for sustainable development purposes, which have nothing to do with forestry, but it's also powers relating to compulsory purchase and acquisition for forestry, and our response is on that point that, A, it's not something that has been used to any degree, it's that when challenged to say what it would be used for, there was no real explanation given of why it would be used, and therefore our sort of normal approach would be to say if there is no clear justification for it, then why include it? Including it does contain in itself some potential threats to people who may wish to plant forests. If they feel that by planting forests they're bringing themselves within the ability to have the land purchased by government, so it could be argued that it's disincented to tree planting, so for us on balance we would say we'd better not to have it than to have it related to forestry. Now, Mike is looking at me because that way he wants to particularly ask on compulsory purchase. Do you want to follow up sort of almost on that also? Very quickly, yes. Thank you very much, convener. I'm particularly exercised by section 16 of this bill on where it says that the Scottish ministers may compulsory acquire land that they require for the purpose of exercising their functions under sustainable forest management and sustainable development. That's sections 9 and 13. When I asked the bill team leader, Carol Barkham and Rowne, on 7 June, I said that the bill does not just transfer current compulsory purchase powers under the law as it stands, it increases ministers' compulsory purchase powers, and Carol Barkham and Rowne said that's correct. When I pressed further, for example, they weren't forthcoming. My question really is to the panel. I'm initially suspicious of giving Parliament more powers to ministers anyway when we don't know what they're being used for. What do you think about section 16, the compulsory purchase of land, moving from the current position of the 1947 act to this much wider aspect of giving ministers what seems to me to be quite wide powers of compulsory purchase? You sort of answered that already, so I'm going to steer away from here. Maybe I could go to Ian and then Malcolm, maybe you'd like to give a view on that, Ian. I suppose that the thing about forestry is that it's actually a culture in Scotland. It's a cultural entity that depends on the people within it and it depends on those people within it getting on. There's a good reason why the Forestry Commission has never used, effectively, compulsory powers it had over many, many years because annoying farmers and every other landholder and all the rest of it is not a good way to go about promoting forestry, so I don't actually see... There may be exceptional circumstances when it's useful for someone who's been very obstreperous or whatever for a very good reason, but generally I don't see any reason to extend the powers at all, actually, and I think it would be counterproductive in many cases. Malcolm, do you want to... I mean, just simply to say, I mean, I'd be fully in agreement with what Ian has said. I don't think that if this is a bill to promote forestry, I don't think that this clause about compulsory purchase actually furthers that aim. Does anyone on the panel want to speak to give a contrary view to that because if not, I'm minded to leave it at that. I just saw that I've got this right. Do the panel members believe that the compulsory purchase powers that were in the 47 act are sufficient, or are you saying that we don't need the increased powers over sustainable development? With the Forestry Commission exercising those powers or the Scottish Ministers exercising those powers and the Scottish Forestry Commission have always fought... Basically they don't do compulsory purchase for very good reasons, as I've just said, because it's a forestry culture. We all depend on each other, whereas Ministers may have slightly different objectives, so they're perfectly adequate as they are. The ideal thing is not to use them unless in extreme circumstances, but changing it to A, having Scottish Ministers having more of a say in it. Also, for other development, I think it's not really forestry, it's extending the remit of the bill way beyond what it is. Ian, can I just ask, have you any examples of compulsory purchase powers being used by the Forestry Commission to further their aims for timber? None whatsoever. The whole panel is shaking their head right. I think if we may, we'll move on and ask John to develop the next theme. Sections 18, 19, 20 talk about delegation to community bodies. I was just interested to ask you and get your views around that. Firstly, do you think that the definition of community bodies in section 19 is appropriate? I'll put it all together. If we've just discussed compulsory purchase, if there is compulsory purchase, do you think that it's appropriate that ministers should be able to delegate the management to community bodies? Quite contentious question in that. Stuart, do you want to lead on that? Yes. We, as an organisation, believe that forestry is something that all types of organisations, all types of parts of the country, communities and all can benefit from being active in. Something that we're very keen to see is communities planting land and becoming active in woodland. We have seen examples, for example, in Northwest Mall, where you have a community that has taken on a previous owned by Forestry Commission, or managed by the Forest Commission piece of forest, and turned that into a real success story. We look at that and think that there are really good examples out there. This approach can work. When we looked at this, we asked two questions. One thing was definition and then compulsory purchase to allow communities to take on areas of forest. What seems strange to us is that there's a definition and then we have points A to H, and then there's the ability for Scottish ministers, if they wish, to ignore B to H, and that to us seemed a bit strange. There's a lot of detail there, and then you give Scottish ministers the ability to ignore all the detail, to disaply all those elements. We would challenge whether that actually makes sense. How would you deal with that? Would you just take the definition out and leave the definition looser to start with, or would you restrict the ability of the ministers to change it? You're now probably asking questions that are both above my pay grade, intelligence and interest. I'll ask someone another time. We do feel that it's important if you have something that's specifically providing for the purchase of forest, which is an asset that we think is very valuable and important to the sector as a whole, that there should be something in there that defines what you're trying to achieve and sets out why it should happen. In that principle, taking B to H and saying it could be set aside does seem to be providing a lot of flexibility to Scottish ministers, and therefore we would believe it should be somewhere in the middle, but I don't have an exact point to which I could put to. I would also flag up that in terms of compulsory purchase and then passing those things on, in the area of sustainable development, as I said, if it's sustainable development of non-forestry land that's purchased and then it's going to be used for non-forestry purposes, then we're not making a comment on that. That was the activity. I don't see why, and it's not being in the bill, that there would be compulsory purchase of forest land to pass it on to a community. There has been nothing in the whole bill or in the evidence or supporting documentation that would say that that was something that would be intended or there's a reason for doing that. If that was allowed for under this, then we'd have a concern because it's not being stated as a possibility. It would be almost like saying we can take land from somebody to give it to somebody else, and we would have serious concerns about that in principle. Okay? Okay? Anyone else on that? Very briefly, because the next subject is quite big, and yeah. That's where it comes back to the time we were scratching our heads. We provided our brief to the committee late yesterday afternoon because we were still struggling to understand some of this and the actual meanings and what powers it gave. That was one thing that we really didn't quite get our head totally around. If there was an ability to buy forestry land to transfer to a community as opposed to sustainable development of non-forestry land, then we would have a real concern. Okay? I'm going to bring Radar in. Sorry, there are a few more questions. I'm going to try and bring them in, but it is going to tell the section that's coming up. Just a quick scenario for you. Quite often forestry land is landlocked, and you can't get it out, and it falls into disrepair. And quite often a community will see an opportunity for local businesses, local community schemes, and they like to use that. If the landowner is just going to hang on to that land and not pass it on to the community, then it's arguable that the forest falls into disrepair and is not managed. Therefore, that would be a scenario where land could be compulsory to purchase and then hand it on to the community to preserve it as forestry and working forestry. A very brief answer, Stuart, if I'm not at a given. Yes, I can understand where you're coming from. I think where we in forestry are very concerned about is that if you're running a business, you're in there every single day, well, at least five days a week. If you're managing farmland, you're managing it pretty much every single day. With forestry, you can realistically plant that forest, do some maintenance work for a few years, and then not do any activity there for 20 to 30 years. It actually makes sense to go in and thin it and do something more often, but you could say, I'm not going to go into that forest for 30 years. How do we come up with a definition, or something which is clear, which says that that land is just being unutilised and it's actually just waiting to be utilised? That's a very grey area for us, and we would raise concerns. Claudia, I'm going to bring you in. Thank you, convener. Just for the record, I think that it is actually from B until F that can be disallowed, and it is important that G and H are both there simply because they are financial issues. I'd just like to know whether any of the panel have any concerns about the definition of community as in this section, 19, as it is different from that in the Community Empowerment Act and also in the Land Reform Act and other legislation. It has to be brief. Just clarify whether the panel are happy with the definition, including B to F. No, I'm just highlighting that actually it was just a point for the record that the disallowance by ministers is actually from B to F, not B to H. I just think that's important, but the question is about whether they have any or are you content to put it more positively with the definition of community? Very briefly at this stage, please. I'll let you go on that, Malcolm. I suggest that that was something that, hopefully, the committee would look at, because I think it is very difficult if you've got different definitions in different bits of legislation. The trouble is that, effectively defining what a community is, which in some cases it may be very few individuals, because forestry sometimes is in a remote area. It's again the thing about there's a big diversity, how you define, effectively, that diversity, I don't know, but I think that a sort of commonality as far as possible would be valuable. I'm going to leave that section there, if I may, and move on to the next section, which Fulton MacGregor is going to introduce. I just wonder if the panel agrees with the Scottish Government view that the committee heard that a broader view of failing is needed, and are you content with what is proposed as consistent with the sustainable forest management? Just to bring the questions together, do you believe that there's been adequate consultation in this part of the bill regarding failing? Who would like to, Malcolm? Could I start by saying that, although there's a lot here about failing, I think there is something missing. That is what I would describe as the current exemptions, which are actually extremely important. For instance, you don't need a failing licence for failing in a garden or an orchard, nor for doing certain kinds of agricultural work. The one that is crucial to land management is the fact that there is a small but defined amount of timber that you can cut on a per quarter or annual basis. This is important. For instance, as an example, we're replacing an old fence line at the moment, because, of course of time, quite a lot of birch has grown up. It's just a practical thing, whether you're a farmer, land manager, whatever you're doing. There was a small level of timber to be cut, but that should be allowed. I don't see anywhere here any reference to the current exemptions. I suggest that the current exemptions might be revised and modernised, but that would be my concern in here. I think that was raised last week, that there was no mention of a certain amount of cubic metres that can be fell for firewood each year, which didn't need consent, which wasn't in there. I think that the Government has accepted that. Does anyone have any additions to that? Heimish, do you want to… He was one of the markers. Just purely practical to give an example. You usually find yourself on a forest site, you're clearing away wood. For whatever reason, the timber is not moving away, you need to increase the size of a lay by. You can't do it. All of a sudden, your whole operation is going to halt. That's happened many times. The need for flexibility, especially in the operation, is vitally important. Jeremy, I'd like to bring you in, if I may, on that as well. It was just a second part of the question. Perhaps it was my fault for combining them both together. Maybe I missed it in the answer, but did the panel feel that there was adequate consultation on the failing part of the bill? Stuart, would you like to comment on that briefly? I mean, I can make… My comment is essentially that the feedback I gave to John Finlay earlier on is that there was awareness that this would be included and our expectation and understanding was that we would be operating on a similar basis as we are currently. In terms of feeding back, it's a very detailed area, so we're looking for reassurance about similar outcome. If we are assured of a similar outcome, including the issue around exemptions, then we're content. Jeremy, can I bring you in? I think that that leads nicely into how the bill approaches failing. The Scottish Government's view on this very much is that they would prefer to have this in detailed in regulation as opposed to detailed in the bill itself, so they want to work with the sector, according to their evidence last time, to create that regulation, post-legislation. Do you have any views on if that's the best approach, however you feel that you're very much part of that consultation process? Brendan, would you like to… Simple answer, no. We're not part of it. Contractors are excluded and I, for the life of me, can't understand it, because we've got the practical end of the experience. It's not just the Parliament, it's all the way through from the top to the bottom, especially with the Forestry Commission, no consultation. That's pretty forthright. Stewart or Malcolm, would you like to come in? You both look to say that you might have an answer to that. From our perspective, we're operating on the basis of trust in that we can't see why there will be a reason to change the outcome. Therefore, we understand there are benefits in having information detail in secondary legislation because that has been highlighted earlier, which allows for easier changes to be made. At the moment, we're not aware of any reason why we should be questioning the approach. As long as that remains the case, we're prepared to work with what we're advised is the legislative basis, which allows this to operate most efficiently. I might just try and bring Fulton in to try and round that up a bit, because I think you had a couple more questions on that. Thanks, convener. I wonder if the panel are aware of any circumstances that might arise where Scottish ministers might refuse an application for failing permission. Overall, how do you anticipate any changes on the ground as a result of the provisions? I can't see it having much impact. Failing has to be regulated, I think that we all agree on that. At the moment, to engage in a failing activity, you generally have to have a forest of any size, you have to have a forest plan or a management plan and have to agree that with a commission. The commission has pragmatic people and they don't throw in objections to failing for economic reasons and all the rest routinely. I don't see there's much there to be concerned about because it's pretty much business as usual, which does work, as far as I can tell from where I'm standing. Does anyone have concerns on refusals? I mean, there might be ones for wildlife. Is that a concern or is it not a concern? Yes, for the wildlife side, that is a major problem. The contractors recognise the problem, but what happens is that you maybe hold it. You've got to work ahead of time and the planning process seems to take so long that if you actually looked at all the reasons why we can and cannot harvest, there's about two weeks in the year that we can harvest. It's shocking. I mean, we know that wildlife issues are important, gosh, we believe in it, but the way that it's working at the moment is just not practical. Stuart, do you want to briefly add something to that? Yes, I mean very briefly what I say is that we're not aware of issues in terms of an absolute refusal to fell. You can never harvest these trees. Clearly, if you've got very important nature woodland and things like that, it's appropriate to apply those. But where you've got a managed productive forest, then yes, I would support Brenner's points. It's not necessarily to do with absolute refusal, but there are guidance in place about when you can harvest so that you don't disturb, for example, birds. What we feel is that everything that we've seen, in particular, we're told that birds of prey are disturbed and that you have to keep certain hundreds of metres away, and then you have birds of prey coming down, eating the sandwiches off the harvester and carbs desk. The guidance has been set, but that guidance itself, we feel, is perhaps incorrectly set, and the danger is that felling legislation can be used to create a blockage that then allows that guidance to kick in. But what we see is not necessarily taking away that the issue of the felling and the control is to make sure that the guidance is correct. I'm afraid that there are one or two other questions that are stacked up, which, unfortunately, I'm not going to get to, so we may submit those as written questions afterwards. Peter, can I ask you to move on to the next theme, please? I want to explore a wee bit about notices to comply and compliance, and these come in throughout the bell. In chapter 6, for instance, it's about registering notice to comply with continuing conditions, felling and restocking, for instance. Sections 42 to 47 provide Scottish Minister with powers to ensure that directions relating to felling are complied with, and then there's a bit in sections 48 to 58 about providing powers to ensure that the action required is undertaken. Do you think that the compliance and notice to comply provisions are an improvement on the current system, or could they be better? I know that I'm not going to get a short answer. Yes or no would be fine, but… I mean, broadly, I don't see any massive change here. This is not something that comes up a lot. Obviously, there has to be powers for the Scottish ministers if something has not been carried out, which would be agreed to be carried out for them to come and force it. However, generalist is done at field level with field officer, and it's not contentious. Stuart, do you want to say something? No, I think that I would simply say that I agree about appropriate implementation, and what we've seen is implementation that we're broadly in agreement with, and therefore it's very complex legislation that's pretty much followed, taking through what was there before. As long as the intent and the legislation are similar in the way that it's applied is the same, then we would be content with it. I might move on and ask Rhaedda to answer the next question. The question is a bit of a catch-all. Other than what's already been discussed and talked about, is there anything that was in the 1967 forestry act that should be in this act that is missing? Anything that is missing from both that you'd have liked to have seen and indeed any unintended consequences from the changes? Does anyone feel that anything has been missed yet? It's maybe not something that's actually specifically missing, although with the previous act there was the purpose, intention and ambition to be expanding the resource, and that ambition applied to both the private sector and the publicly owned forest, and it comes back to references a point that I made earlier about the concern that on the publicly owned forest, the public managed forest, there's the potential for the forest to be cleared because it's seen to have lesser value, economic value. For us, we look at the national forest estate as being hugely important for the future of the sector. About a third of the wood supply that supports 25, 26,000 rural jobs in a billion-pound industry comes from the forests that are owned and managed by Scottish ministers. Therefore, what we see is that there's nothing in here that recognises that or seeks to protect that, and the investment that's been taken on, I'm sure that Hamish could go into a lot more detail than I can about the need for that long-term confidence to underpin this long-term investment. At the moment, there's nothing in there that seeks to protect the status of that forest, and that's of concern to us. Stuart, you've made that point several times, so I'm sure that we have indeed picked that up. Is there anything that anyone feels is particularly missed? Mist, it's a matter of what way it's sort of handled. It goes back to what we were discussing because now that the Scottish ministers take the place of the commissioners, they ultimately are responsible for seeing the restocking on the national forest estate, but they are the people who actually enforce to see that the restocking takes place anyway. I just wonder if there's an issue there. It goes back slightly to what was raised earlier about having a chief forest officer. There seems to be almost a situation here that the person who is responsible for the action is also the person who's responsible for policing it. I haven't got an answer to that one, but it seems to me a potential issue. There is concern about restocking. I must make that point across the board. We may leave that hay and move on, if I may, to John, who is going to do the final theme. Just a very quick question about the financial memorandum. According to the financial memorandum, it says that there will be no financial implications for local authorities, other bodies, individuals or businesses. Are you all comfortable with that? Stuart, why don't you answer that? If you get this wrong, it will obviously be coming out of comfort. I've never been asked to underwrite Government expenditure before, but our understanding is that the costs associated with the scent are generally associated with rebranding, etc., and internal changes. Therefore, they will be following on in the Scottish Government rather than local authorities or other bodies. I would just like to ask one final question, if I may. I've heard from Stuart and from Malcolm that there's some concern that all this is being placed in the hands of politicians, and there might be a role for a forestry supremo whose job is to promote forestry. I am not convinced that I've heard from Ian, Hamish and Brendan very briefly on whether you would support that principle, or whether you're just happy with everything going to the Scottish Government. Hamish? I can say again that when both sides of forestry, if you like, has been in the same house, we've had the overarching, the national committee, the regional forum and so on. We've had a structure of checks and balances and we've had an audit and risk committee. One of my concerns would be that, when the old forestry authority bit of it disappears into government, as a department or a division of government, there isn't that public oversea, if you like, in terms of what their activity is, the checks and balances. That's not clear at this stage how that would actually be managed, Ian. To support that, it sounds nice having a champion for forestry, and that would be good without knowing the detail. It's more important than an individual. As I said, forestry is a culture and the Forestry Commission for 100 years has been the linchpin of that culture in Scotland, so we can achieve what we've done so far. If we dissipate the Forestry Commission by the forest enterprise section, there's less concern about that, but it's the conservancy for practical foresters of taking that culture and putting it into a much bigger one. We all know that it's a critical mass issue here. You've got to keep a critical mass to maintain a culture, and we in Scotland obviously appreciate that. The point is that if you put that into a much bigger culture and it's not protected, or even if it's protected, it'll still just inevitably dissipate and be dispersed. That culture is more important than an individual championing forestry. The whole forestry in Scotland is a fantastic organisation, and it's achieved a lot. If you look at the way changes have been made, we may get reassurances on that it'll be protected, everything's going to be fine, but if you look at where it's happened elsewhere, for instance in Wales, and with Historic Scotland perhaps in Scotland, that dissipation of talent and enthusiasm and a culture that's gone, and that's what we're going to do. My fear is that we will destroy that whole forestry culture by incorporating it into Scottish Government. Brendan, do you want to give a short one? I'll give a short one. It's about trust and confidence. The first thing to say to me is that I should explain that within Europe I've got a wider remit that includes agriculture. I work in the European Economic and Social Committee. What I see is a huge problem with the rural community of businesses, agriculture and forestry, and the way that it is presently operating. We need people with practical experience that actually understand what happens in the rural areas, and we're not getting it. If you just look at things like the supermarkets and the farmers with milk, that is the same problem that's going on at the moment. The money is not staying in the rural communities. We keep hearing about forestry, and we talk about sawmills, etc. These are urban businesses employing urban people. Rural communities are not the only benefit when the money goes to the landowner, and hopefully that landowner actually lives in Scotland and doesn't live in Canada, New Zealand and Australia. This is an issue about money going into the rural community, and that issue has never been addressed. We need technical people at the top that are going to actually discuss the wider issues of forestry. At the present moment, that debate is not taking place. That might be the best place to leave that and say thank you to Stuart Brendan, Malcolm and Hamish for the evidence that you've given. There may be further questions that the committee wants to ask. If there are some things that you think we haven't looked at closely enough and you want to give evidence to the committee, please do write into the class. I'd like to now very briefly suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to change over, and thank you again for your evidence this morning. Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to continue with the evidence session, which is at gender item 1. I'd like to welcome the second panel today. First of all, David Henderson Howard, the chair of the Central Scotland Forestry Forum, Clare Glacier, the chair of the Grampian Regional Forestry Forum, Patrick Hunter Blair, chair of South Scotland Forestry Forum, and Richard Sterling-Eard, the chair of the Perthanal Garf Forestry Forum. We've also received written evidence from the Highlands and Islands Forestry Forum, who sadly were unable to attend. If I could just remind panel members, if you have or haven't given evidence before, that you don't need to push the buttons, the buttons will be and your speakers will be activated. If I could ask you to look to me, if you want to give an answer and I'll try and bring you in, and also once you start giving your answer, if I could ask you to keep an eye on me as well just in case you go off on a tangent, and I need to bring you back, it saves cutting off your microphone, which may be incredibly rude. I haven't had to do that yet. The first theme that we're going to do is going to be from John Finnie. I suspect that some of you, if not all of you, were present when we kicked off last time. It is about the development of the bill and the role that the consultation played in that, what was and wasn't consulted upon. In particular, are you content with how thorough the consultation was, specifically on the management of land by Scottish ministers and on the issue of failing? It's the consultation around that, please. Who'd like to go with that? David, would you like some? Well, convener, the word on the street is consultation exercise and didn't really listen to the responses. If you read the policy memorandum, for example, it very much focuses not on the responses for individuals but on the responses from organisations. We're told that over half the organisations responded yes to question one, but if you look at the detail, even that isn't quite true. 49 said yes out of 107 and quite a lot said don't know. Question one was also a double question. It was our proposal for a dedicated forestry division in the Scottish Government at an executive agency to manage the national forest estate. It was a double question and, as I say, it seems that what's in the bill reflects what was proposed in the consultation document and not much attention was paid to the consultee responses. Does anyone want to come in on that? If I could just reiterate what David said about question one, certainly in Grampian we felt unable to support either yes or no on that answer simply because we felt we needed to comment on both individually, both had pros and cons, which we weren't able to comment on in that question or the way the question was formed. Patrick. South Scotland exactly the same. We were unhappy with the idea of the formation of a division within Government. I responded accordingly to the consultation, looked at the analysis of the responses to the consultation, and so, well actually, they didn't tie in with what the Government was saying that the majority of people, including the majority of organisations, were not in favour of setting up a forestry division within Government. John, do you want to work that out for me? Yeah, it was more on what was consulted on rather than the particular analysis of responses, because I think that's quite often open to interpretation and, you know, the relative value that you put on a representative body regarding one individual and the extent of knowledge they may have there. The issue specifically of management of land is something that the previous panel touched on. Was there a need to consider this as part of a new forestry bill, perhaps? Patrick. This is where I'm going to show my lack of experience on these matters, but I struggle to see what is appropriate to be contained within the bill, what might be in secondary legislation, and indeed what might be within the forestry strategy once it's made. So I see the bill as enabling, empowering, etc. Government, but the detail of that then follows after that, and isn't necessarily restricted by that. Okay, so Richard, did you want to come in on that? Yes, I would agree with that, and going back to the first point, the Perth and Argyll forum, which consists of 12 members drawn from public and private sector organisations of farming, forestry, seaper, were all of a mind that it was a very bad idea to subsume the Forestry Commission into government, and keeping it as an executive agency with its own brand, a very valuable brand, was very much the whole forum's choice, and like the previous speakers, we were not very happy with the analysis of that when it came through, because clearly the majority, the great majority of respondents were of the same view as ourselves. But when it comes to the management, I would agree with Patrick that the bill is fairly bland. It doesn't go into any detail about management. I mean, for instance, on strategy, forestry strategy, we think that should go down to a much more local level. Okay, well, we're going to develop the strategy in a minute. John, do you want to develop that more, or should I bring Stuart in on what should be in the bill and what's not? I mean, if you'd like to develop the bill. There were just two other small points, if I may please, convener, and that was the wider programme of devolution of forestry includes things not included in the bill, and that was the cross-border arrangements and the new organisational arrangements. Are you happy with the direction that these parts of the programme are moving in? David, if you'd like to start, I'm very happy whichever way you speak to them, take somebody else if they've got an opposing view, David. Happy with the direction, just serious worries about what actually is going to come out. There's an awful lot of unknown still about the outcome of the discussions with DEFRA and the Welsh Government, and whether the money for research, for example, will be forthcoming. So still a lot of unknowns there. Does anyone have a contrary view or further concerns? I don't have a contrary view, but it follows on from what Stuart Goodall was saying earlier, that as well as the three main priorities that are in the bill for cross-border co-operation, I would certainly stress that the whole forecast inventory be considered as well. Basement of investment decisions, as Stuart was saying, but also if the methodologies are slightly different, if the timing is slightly different of what's done in Scotland as opposed to other countries, and that could be an issue. On a personal level, I know that skills in education are devolved, but the skills that are required to operate a harvesting machine in Scotland are the same as those in England. I would like to see reassurance that those links will be maintained as well. Yes, I want to go back to what Confor put in the submission to today's meeting, which says to ensure retention of professional staff in the long term. The bill should create a post of chief forester for Scotland. I'll also add to that the Highlands and Islands Forestry Forum response to the consultation said that governance and accountability are critical. How appointments are made is key to the whole thing. The specific proposal that I want to go to that Confor have made, and just to explore what your views are, the chief forester that is proposed, I am interested to know whether you think that that is someone who should be a champion external to the management of this activity, or whether you think that it's really important that the chief forester, or whoms who ever are called, is the person who manages it. The model that I put to the previous panel was that of the chief scientist who doesn't manage anything in government but is simply the independent conscience of science that prodds government and champion science in the whole of government. Those are not necessarily the only alternatives, of course, the way that I choose to put it. How do you think about the chief forester idea that Confor put forward? Who would like to lead on that? Patrick, do you want to go on that? I'll start on that, if you like. It actually wasn't the concept that I had considered, or the South Scotland forum that I've considered before today. Having sat through the evidence from the first panel this morning, I'm not sure I'm any clearer in my own mind, and therefore in the mind of the South Scotland forum, whether if there is a to be a chief forest officer, whether that person has an executive role or is non-executive. However, I do think that it's important if that post is being created that they have a professional forestry background or an academic forestry background. I've looked— I intervene. There is a distinction between these two things that you would accept, which would you give higher priority to? I would like to see it professional. Right. If the committee has time to look at experience in other countries in Ireland, North and South and Wales and to see what's happened there where chief forest officers have various roles, some of them have come from a background of administrative civil servants, some of them are professional foresters, some of them are academics. I think that there are lessons to be learned from other countries. I think that I might leave that one there and move on to the second theme, which Peter is going to introduce. Good morning, folks. My questions are round about functions in part 2 of the bell, which is about modernisation of the forestry functions, bringing the Forestry Act of 1967 up to date. Do you believe that this goes far enough in the new bell? It also talks in the bell a lot about sustainable forest management. We think that it's well understood and well used within the industry. Do you think that the bell changes how the industry will work in respect of sustainable forestry management? Who would like to lead off on that? You're all being very polite. David, you start and I'll bring Patrick in afterwards. I will convener in that case. Yes, you're right, sustainable forest management is a well-developed term that has been developing, I would guess, over the last 15, 20 years. It's part and parcel of what Scottish Forestry is all about and it's right that it should be part of the bell. Patrick? Absolutely. One of the reasons why it should be important is that it puts Scottish Forestry in a context of international forestry. Still, a lot of the timber used in this country is important. If we are requiring standards of forest management in other countries, then we should have our own house in order and having our own house in order is sustainable forest management. Richard? Yes, I support that. Our forum thinks that the sustainable forest management should be linked to the UK forest standards. I think that's a point that's been discussed before. The bell should place greater emphasis on biodiversity. Peter, do you want to go to the next question? The bell requires ministers to prepare and publish a forestry strategy. Would you like to see that the bell states what particular issues must be included in a forest strategy, for instance? How do you think a forest strategy, how do you think it should look, what should it include and what does it need to do? I don't think that that's a matter for the bill, to be quite honest. I think that that's a matter for the development of the forestry strategy. The bill should enable and empower Government to produce a forestry strategy, but the scope of a forestry strategy is going to be fairly wide. In some areas it could be strategic, in some areas it could be a bit more detailed there, but that's a matter for the development of the strategy. I'm glad that there is reference to it. I'm glad that it would be in the act. It would be nice to see a furtherance of that, to say that ministers would have a duty to enable the delivery of, rather than just prepare and publish, it gives it some sort of direction. I wonder, following on from the discussions this morning, whether there should be a link made here somewhere, perhaps not in the bill, but to local authority forest and woodland strategies that pick up that local distinctiveness and flavour? David? I think that it might make sense for the actors to say that the strategy needs to be revised, for example, once every 10 years. So a review clause within the strategy, within the bill? Do you think that strategies should also, as Stuart Goodall suggested, suggest a bit of ambition and targets to meet and that sort of thing? We know we're trying to achieve the 10,000 hectares and maybe go to 15. Should that be included in this strategy, do you feel? You will nod it there, say the one person that didn't was Richard, so I'm going to go to Richard. I don't know if that was a careful ploy. I think that there should be a time limit on the reduction of a national strategy in the first place, so I mean two years. Also, as I said before, it's all very well having a national strategy, but the strategy needs to be enabled to be taken down to a regional level. I'm Scotland is so diverse. You could have an overarching strategy, but that needs to then evolve down into local strategies. Do you want to come back on that or are you happy with that? It was really just to reach here at the SID. I do agree that there should be an ambition. Maybe we'll move on to the next theme, Stuart. Thank you. I think that this is fairly brief, this one probably. The responsibility for civic culture and tree health comes together, basically bringing plant health act 67 of the plant variety and seeds act 64 together in one place. Is that good news or bad? Who would like to tell you that? You can just nod and say that it's good news. If you think that it's all good news, then that's fine. David? All I would add is that it's one thing to have the powers. You also need the scientific expertise to deal with tree health, and it's going back to the cross-border function. It's so important that we rebuild our expertise at a UK basis on tree health, and so that there's the expertise there as well as the powers. Does anyone want to add anything to that or do you all agree? Okay, I maybe move on to the deputy convener, Gayle Ross, who's got the next theme. Thank you, convener. Good morning, panel. Again, to go back to the question that I asked, the first panel about sustainable forest management and to concentrate on section 9, it states that the land must be managed in a way that promotes sustainable forest management. Will it make any difference on the ground, and would you like to see any changes? Also to pick up what Claire had said, it was something that I had written down after the last panel about how the planning system, how it does the bill, integrate with local development plans and local woodland strategies, as well. Just to add in the question that I had the last time as well, are you clear about what is designated as forestry land and other land? Right, I hope that you've all remembered those three questions. Who'd like to head off on that? Patrick, do you want to start? I'll go first, if you like. I can almost answer these in the opposite direction that you asked them. No, I'm not clear. I'm clear what sustainable forest management is in my own mind, and I think I know what sustainable development is. The bill is a forest and land management bill. It's not a forestry bill, so therefore there's a right from the start, and there's other land involved in this. I think I'm right in saying that, by any definition of sustainable forest management, there is a requirement for open space within that forest, if you like. In other words, not all forest land carries trees. If you look at the national forest estate, I think that Stuart gave statistics for how much open space there was earlier on. There is land that is managed in conjunction with forest, which is forest land, even though it doesn't carry trees. There is farmland that is currently managed by the Forest Commission in some form or another. You can see that, if the powers come through for forest and land Scotland to manage other land on behalf of Government ministers, there will be a huge continuum of different types of land. I think that one of the concerns that I would have, and again it was voiced by the earlier panel, was that sustainable development may well trump the term used sustainable forest management. If ministers see a potential for another land use that is preferential to forestry, then sustainable development kicks in and sustainable forest management is left behind. That is my concern, if you understand what I am saying. Gail mentioned integration with local plans. That will come through in regional forestry strategies, I would suggest. It is not something for the bill itself. Clarell Davies, do you have a view on other land, forestry land and the definition of sustainability? Other than that, I was very confused by it too, and that was on several readings of section 9 and section 13. I was concerned, as Patrick has already intimated, that the trumping of sustainable development over sustainable forest management. When I first read through it, I thought that maybe an answer to that would be, as you have in section 9.3, you are saying that ministers can use the land and manage the land, having regard to the forestry strategy. Maybe to have a similar sentence or another sentence in section 13, but then when we were talking earlier, I was not sure whether section 13 referred to other land or whether it referred to forestry land and other land. I am confused by that, those definitions, those subjects and sections. I think that it is too ambiguous. We will move on to the next thing, if we may, which is Jamie. Obviously, we had a conversation earlier, and I believe that some of you were sitting listening in on that, so we went into quite minute detail on section 13. However, just to take a more step back, I would really be keen to get a broader review from you. Someone said earlier that this is not just a forestry bill, this is a forestry and land management bill. Given the complexities and perhaps ambiguities of some of the sections around what constitutes forestry land or non-forestry land, whether it should be used for forestry or sustainable development and so on, is this bill the right place to tackle those issues around land management in general? Do you have any views on whether those should be separated from a forestry bill? In effect, I feel like perhaps some of the evidence that we have had leads us to think that we are trying to do too much in this bill. David, do you want to... Yes, my view is that the policy intention here is unclear. Is the policy intention simply, for example, to allow the forestry commission to run starter farms on the national forestry estate, which is great? Or is the policy intention here, for example, for the new body, to take on the management of national nature reserves from SNH, or is it to allow the new body to do... I mean, we just don't know. Does Clad, you want to come in on that? I certainly can sympathise with the question, is this trying to do too much? If you're looking back at the 67 acts and saying, well, yes, it's obviously expanding and extending from that, the only other thing I would say that forestry commission staff do manage non-forestry land, however we define that, and I wouldn't want the bill to restrict them doing their very good job that they do just now. I wouldn't want the bill to restrict them from doing that, continuing into the future. Does Patrick Bridget, do you want to come in on that? Yes, if I may. I think one of the things that we are starting to look like a success in forestry and land management in Scotland is integrated land use, which deserves another definition all of its own, as well as sustainable forest management and sustainable development. When I was at university in the 1970s, it was a golden goal integrated land use in Scotland. We are starting to talk about it very positively and starting in some way to achieve it. Speaking against the idea that the bill is too far-reaching, if it was restricted purely to forestry, we would be shutting forestry back in a silo, which it doesn't deserve to be in and trying to keep it open at the same time trying to keep it clear is going to be a nice balancing act. Certainly support that. I've spent half a century trying to integrate land management, forestry, farming, development, et cetera. I think it would be wrong to limit this field entirely to forestry. I think that the whole point is to try and bring in other integrated land management, as others have said. It's not something specifically that our forum has discussed, but I feel sure that they would agree with me that that would be the correct way of approaching. We had quite a substantial written response from the Highland Islands Forestry Forum. I think that their views were very clear in the Britain format. That could be a simple yes or no. The first question posed to them. Do you agree with the proposed approach for a dedicated forestry division in the Scottish Government and an executive agency to manage a national forestry estate? Their answer was no. We recommend that those should be managed by an arms-length NGBP. What do you have in front of you was a copy of their response to the public consultation back in October, November last year, or whatever it was. I just worked on the presumption that you have been made available to the response from the other forestry forums to that consultation. You won't have it in front of you, but you should have access to it. Certainly speaking for South Forum, I think that all the forums would probably say yes to that question. Do we agree with the written paper that you have in front of you? Do you agree with their response or the proposed approach? We agree with their response that a dedicated forestry division within Government is not the right way forward. Just to explain that all those regional forums had their own discussions in different parts of Scotland last autumn, and it was only when we came together a few weeks ago that we realised that we were all of one voice in opposing the proposal. I guess that that's almost helpful if you're all together on that. I think that Jamie will leave that if you're happy on that and move on next to Mike. I mean, I would just preface my question by saying that the bill gives tremendous increased powers to ministers on compulsory purchase. In addition, I must put into some of the questions in the context that you've been getting, and I'm glad that the panel members are listening to this as well, that we can only amend what's in this bill before us as MSPs. We can only put down amendments that Parliament will vote on on what's in the bill. When the regulations come forward, we can't amend the regulations. Whatever the minister decides, that's it. We can either reject it or pass it, so we can't amend it. It's really important to find out what you feel should be in this bill or not, as far as I'm focusing on compulsory purchase. With that in mind, we can only amend what's before us in this bill. I'm particularly concerned about section 16, which changes the power of ministers to compulsory purchase land. In the 1947 act, it said that ministers can compulsory purchase land for sustainable forest management, but what this bill does is give enormous power to ministers basically to compulsory purchase land for sustainable development without defining specifically what sustainable development is. I'd like to ask you whether you have concerns about this? I'm very happy to go to it briefly if I may. David Duke and Claire I see and Richard. I don't understand why they've got this compulsory purchase provision in the bill, because to my knowledge, the last time the Forestry Commission tried to do compulsory purchases in Norfolk in the 1950s and the parliamentary inquiry told them that they shouldn't do it and they never tried to use those powers since, as far as I know. Claire. I similarly have concerns, as David has expressed, that I don't see if it's not being used now, why included, and especially with a broader reach, that is of great concern. Richard. Our forum discussed this and they were very concerned that the Scottish Government needs to clarify exactly what this means, what is the objective in clause 16. Compulsory purchase is a minefield, as we all know, and if it's not very carefully focused, it'll get mired down in the court, so I'd suggest. We're not at all happy with the way clause 16 reads. It could encompass a whole raft of unintended things, so it should be much more focused if it should be there at all. As David said, in the purely forestry terms, it's hardly ever been used, but of course we're dealing with other than just forestry, so this could lead on to all sorts of things in the way it's framed at the moment. Mike, do you want to follow that out? No, I think that's a very helpful response. As far as I'm summarising what the response is, that there's not a great deal of happiness about expanding the power from 1947. The one question that wasn't asked to the previous panel is the disposal of land relating to the forest estate. In the past, this Parliament had agreed that there could be a certain amount of rationalisation, but the money used from the sale of forestry assets would be put back into forestry assets. Just as a general question, is that the way that you see it should be going forward, or are you happy for the forest estate to be sold off and for that money not to go back into the assets but to go into the running of the forest estate? David, do you want to say a quick answer if I may push you on that? A central Scotland regional forest forum understands the rationale for the currently relatively low level of disposals and looks at them pretty carefully. It would certainly be extremely concerned about the level of disoables, for example, which the Scottish Government proposed seven or eight years ago, when it thought about getting rid of 25 per cent of the estate. We'd be very concerned about that sort of level of disposal. Claire, can I ask you to have an opinion on that? Perhaps not directly answering your question, convener, but we would be worried about what purpose would that land be disposed for and what controls would be in place to make sure that there wasn't a net loss of wood and cover. Rich, do you have anything different to add? It's not so important who owns the forestry, it's managed, and it's extended and created. Maybe we could move on to the next theme, which is John. Sections 18 to 20 in the bill talk about community bodies and potentially delegating functions to community bodies. Any thoughts on that? For example, the definition of a community body, are you comfortable with that? Should it be in the legislation, should it be elsewhere, the fact that ministers have some powers to vary that? I'm just looking at one of the definitions or requirements that there should be 20 members. I'm wondering if that needs to be in the bill itself, or if we give the minister power to vary that. The concept of compulsory purchases that we've just discussed, is it appropriate that a function of managing that would be delegated to a community body? Who would like to lead on that? I understand that the reason for having those provisions in the bill is because it's already possible for communities to buy land from the forestry commission, but it isn't always possible for communities to afford to buy land. The reason for that provision is to allow arrangements for the communities to take long-term leases of forestry commission land, which is great. I think that section 19 is simply to try to find some language to make sure that it's a bona fide community activity rather than something that's masquerading as a community activity. In that sense, I'm comfortable with it. Is that—I think that one of the questions that John was happy with was whether the land would be bought and then handed on to a community? That was a fairly clear answer. I'm happy with that, but I don't know if any others have comments on that. Just a point of detail and I suppose the definitions that I'm not familiar with, but as we've been talking a lot about definitions this morning, it would seem to be that the definition of community should be the same in this bill as in the Community Empowerment Act and in the Land Reform Act. Are you aware of any reasons why it's not? Can I bring Claudia in at this stage? Thank you, Gavina, and still morning. Good morning to the panel. I'm not sure what you said, but I am sure what I'm saying. Sorry. Can I just ask you about what interest you have experienced in your capacity, in your forums, from community groups in the management and purchase of forest land and indeed beyond that, because we do have the integrated land use strategy, which I think both Patrick and Richard have highlighted a keenness towards. Could you make any comment on that? Patrick, it looks like you were named, so you're going to have to say something. I'll go first. I suppose I want to declare an interest on it as well, because I sit in the community asset transfer evaluation panel, but if I can sit that aside and talk about it from a forestry forum perspective, very little interest is the answer. David, do you want to? Yeah, what I'm going to say is that school within Central Scotland, it tends to be much more about community engagement in woods in and around towns, which is a different story really from community leasing or community ownership. It's about engagement, but what I'd also say is that I think our colleague from the High... Could I stop you on that? Would you see that as in any way part of this bill? No, that doesn't require that. That just requires the way in which Forestry Commission Scotland has been engaged in with communities. And if I think our colleague from the Highlands and Islands were here, he'd be the one answering this question, because the activity tends to be much more, not I'm saying, exclusively in the Highlands, but much more in the Highlands and Islands. Claire, and then Richard. I would certainly reflect what Patrick finds in the South of Scotland. We don't have very much interest from communities in Granffin Forestry Forums area. There are community woods managed by communities, but on the forum itself, very little. Richard. Sorry, is that the make-up of the forum, or is that... Yes. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Richard. I would just add that our forum, which is Perth and Argyll, I mean we've been on visits to community groups in Marl in particular, and I would say that is real interest. It perhaps mirrors this sort of Highlands and Islands thing, but clearly there is in those parts of the country at least real interest in community and communities acquiring Forestry Commission land and running it themselves in certain circumstances. We can move on, Fulton, with your theme next. Thanks, convener. Thanks, panel, for your attendance. I'm just wondering, do you agree with the Scottish Government that a broader view of failing is needed, and are you content that what is proposed is consistent with sustainable forest management? Who would like to lead on that? David, do you want to go on that? I heard the earlier discussion, convener, and I think I'm probably speaking agree with what people said earlier that there need to be felling regulations. There's a bit of surprise as to how much detail comes into the primary legislation as to what should go into the secondary legislation, and the definition of felling seems slightly bizarre to say the least. So I think it needs looking at, but certainly there needs to be some sort of control of the felling. So too much information in the bill and not a good enough definition, is that the general panel feeling? It seems to me that the balance of the amount of detail on felling is more emphasis given to that than is perhaps necessary when you compare it with other matters in the bill. Picking up a different area that's been discussed earlier, we're quite pleased to see the dislinking, that's not a verb, but you know what I mean, of illegal felling having to have a conviction before you can put on the power to restock, so I think it's useful that that's now been separated. Jamie, do you want her to develop that a bit more? Yeah, I'm perhaps a little bit confused over some of the views on this. I think that certainly the notes that we had on the felling sections of the bill stated that it was actually sort of lacking in detail and that the bill wouldn't really deal with the specifics of felling regulations and licences, exemptions, et cetera, that'll be dealt with in regulation, but I've also heard a few times this morning people saying there's a bit too much detail on felling, so you know which is it as sort of your view. David, I'll start with you. I'd say you need a lot of detail, you need to exempt for example gardens and churches, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, but the question is whether you need all that detail in the primary legislation or whether it can just simply be dealt with by regulation. Does anyone want to add anything to that? Jamie, are you happy with that? Yeah, I think you had another question on forestry. Thanks again, convener. The panel before you, if I don't know if all of you are in or not, seemed to unanimously, I agree that they didn't think the provisions would make much difference or changes on the ground. What's your view on that as a panel? Clear. Sorry, in relation to felling, I guess. I would agree with the previous panel. I don't see that there's any reason to be much significant change, if any. David, do you have concerns or are you happy? Yeah, okay. I'm just going back to the point that Jamie made because of the idea that there's either too much in the bill or there's not enough in the bill. On this issue of felling, section 24 says that regulations under section 1 may provide that section 3 doesn't apply to particular categories of person, particular places, particular circumstances, trees of particular description, without going into any of the detail. Things that will be coming forward in regulations are things like appeals against decisions by Scottish ministers, applications for felling permissions, decision application to fellow tree, compensation, felling directions. I go back to the point that I said earlier. The whole point about putting a bill through Parliament is that it has proper scrutiny and that MSPs are able to amend what the Government is bringing forward in a bill. If all that is delegated to regulations, we don't have any chance to get it right, to make amendments to that. That is our opportunity to say that they should be in the bill or we're content that they shouldn't. Can I just absolutely clarify? Are you content that those regulations are left to Scottish ministers to decide rather than Parliament? Who'd like to? David, do you want to go on that? You do get into very technical issues such as, for example, the de minimis exemption of five cubic metres per calendar quarter. There's a lot of detail in the forestry at 1967, which arguably could go into secondary legislation so that it can be updated and so forth in a relatively streamlined way. I think that Mike's concern is that if it's put in a regulation, it can arbitrarily be changed and Parliament can't look at it. Is that the point that you're making? The point that I'm making is that Parliament can't amend anything about the Government. In practice, what tends to happen is that the Government brings forward regulations because there are a lot of good things in the regulations and there are other issues there. They tend to go forward without being thrown out because MSPs are reluctant to do that. But what we can do is amend the bill without the loss of the bill, if you see what I mean. That's the question I'm asking. Are you therefore content that a lot of the detail which we cannot amend will be given to ministers to do? I understand that. Sorry, I should also have made my point clear that the regulations have to come for scrutiny as well, so they will come through the procedure. Absolutely. But we can't amend it, that's the point I'm making. Sorry. Does anyone want to add anything in light of what Mike has just said? Sorry, Richard. Just one point that came through to our forum and Claire has already mentioned it is that the Forest Commission seem unable to serve a restocking notice, and restocking is very important, without getting a court order. Now that's the sort of thing that maybe should go in the primary legislation, I don't know. But that seems to be the single most important issue that's come to our notice at least. Okay, maybe we can move on to the next question, I hope, because Fulton's got one more, I think, on failing. Yeah, I thought it was kind of complicated by Mike as well, but I suppose it was just if the panel were aware of any circumstances where Scottish ministers might refuse an application for failing. So, would anyone like to answer that? Sorry. David, do you want to go on that? Just to clarify, I think what normally happens is the powers are in the background, and there's often negotiation about failing. So, in large forests, what will come out will be an agreed forest design plan, agreed between Forestry Commission staff and the owner. And it's only rare that you actually get occasions when there's actual questions of denying failing permission. For example, there was an oak wood over in East Lothian a few years ago where the owner wanted to clearfail the oaks, and there's a huge row about it, and potentially failing permission for failing those oaks could have been denied. In fact, there was a long process of negotiation and a satisfactory solution was found, but they're good to have in the background. Okay, unless anyone's got anything to add to that. I may move on to the next theme, which is Peter. Yeah, I mean it kind of falls on what we've been discussing. It's about the compliance and notice to comply provisions, and we've kind of been speaking about that. Do you feel that the compliance and notice to comply provisions are an improvement in the bell and what we've got just now, or could they be improved further? I must admit to being somewhat confused and uncertain of the need to register any failing approvals. I wasn't certain whether that was for all failing approvals, whether they'd be a failing licence or a long-term forest plan, and registering with land registry and then deregistering. I wasn't quite sure whether that was the case. I'm interested to hear what the interpretation actually is. Patrick, do you want to add anything to that? I don't add anything, thanks though. Peter, I mean do you want to develop that story? Well, I mean, I just do wonder, you know, that's all about the notices to comply with continuing conditions about failing directions, restocking directions, it's all about powers to ensure that directions related to failing are complied with, directions related to, if something is not being complied with, that gives powers to ensure that the action is actually undertaken. It comes up through the bell in various sections, right through the bell, this compliance stuff. I just wonder if you are content with what's in there and is there other things that should be in there, improvements that could be made to all that compliance regulation, or are you content with what the bell states? David. Well, let's say with respect, convener, is the danger of looking at the fine-fine detail and losing the big picture. The big picture here is through this bell, we're losing the forestry commission, which has had around 100 years of history and has done the job of, in a sense, meaning these notices of compliance and stuff, aren't needed by and large because there's been a long process of negotiation and working with forest owners and forest managers on the ground to get things done. Therefore, notices of compliance, they sit in the background of the legislation, they're not actually called forward because of the way in which forestry arrangements are being made, and the big thing that you're doing through this bill is potentially throwing out that structure. Richard, you... I suppose we're used to seeing these sort of regulations in the background that seems to work through the system that David just mentioned, so I don't think we have any particular, I don't have any particular comment on them, I don't see them as threatening on them particularly. Okay, we might move on to the next theme, which is Schrader. Are there any of the provisions that were in the 1967 act that should have been carried forward to this act that are missing? Not the things that have already been discussed, obviously, by committee, but anything different, and indeed, are there any unintended consequences from what is in the new bill? David, do you want us... The big thing that's missing is the existence of the Forestry Commission or a Forestry Commission Scotland. Does anyone want to add to that, or do you think that that's the biggest mess, Rhoda? Do you want to push that at all? I think that's been covered earlier, where people have expressed those concerns, but I was thinking more about the detail of the bill. Are there things that have unintended consequences, and I think we're aware of the concerns about the issues around the Forestry Commission, but are there other things in the bill that maybe throw up unintended consequences, or indeed things that are missing within the rule? We had one member, just earlier this week, express some confusion, not confusion, that's possibly the wrong word, curious that the powers of ministers to enable or make hair and rabbit control happen. She thought that was quite an interesting deletion from this bill. Maybe we'll move on to the final theme, John. Yes, thanks again. Just on the financial memorandum, it states fairly categorically that there will be no financial implications for local authorities, other bodies, individuals or businesses as a result of the bill, but by implication any financial impact will be on the Government itself. Any comments on that? Are you all comfortable with that? I was interested that, in the financial memorandum, they were talking about one-off costs of between £6 million and £12 million, largely for IT. At your last session, you had some skepticism about the IT costs. Then I looked through the financial memorandum to try to see what savings they thought would come from the proposal to move Forestry Commission Scotland to a Forestry division. They didn't seem to be much in the way of proposed savings from the changes, so I wondered why. I can ask why you thought there might be savings? Because, as I said repeatedly during the session, they wanted to make a pretty fundamental change to the way in which Forestry Commission is organised in Scotland. I thought that they might have had some justification on grounds of savings. I thought that they were arguing that it was more democratic rather than cheaper. Interesting. That moves on to the Governance point. When you look at the Governance point, what we have at the moment as a way in which stakeholders have a much greater say through the non-executives who are appointed to become Forestry Commissioners or whatever their replacement might be—non-executor directors—whereas, under the proposed arrangements, it will be much more opaque in the sense that it will just be a division within a directorate within the Scottish Government, which is hidden within the Scottish Government website, for example, as opposed to an organisation that people can know and can approach. Okay. I am probably not going into that area at the moment, but anyway, on finances, nobody else feels that— Richard indicated that— I may be going on a completely different track here, but if the bill is successful in increasing—gradually—the amount of forestry is going to increase by 10, 15,000 hectares a year as a result of support from the bill, clearly that is going to have an impact on local authorities, infrastructure roads and that sort of thing. I may be going completely off track here, but that is an implication. That is more because of the general aim to increase the forestry. That is the general aim—one of the general aims of the bill, isn't it? There are bound to be implications from that, but that has been on-going for many years, so there is nothing new. It will just increase a bit. I think that is at the end of our session. I would like to thank you all—David, Claire, Patrick, Richard for coming this morning and giving evidence. It is always useful to hear views of other people and allows us to make informed decisions. Thank you. I would like to briefly suspend the meeting. I would like to ask committee members to remain seated in their seats so that we can move directly on and ask the witnesses to leave as quickly as possible. Thank you. I would like to now move to agenda item 2, which is the Public Petition PE1598 on protecting wild salmonoids from sea lice from Scottish salmon farms. Previous consideration of this petition is detailed in paper 3. The committee did receive a letter in April from the petitioner. I would also like to point out that members of the committee visited a salmon farm barely two weeks ago to look at how that operated. I would like to ask if there are any comments on the petition before I move on to make a suggestion, as far as further action on the petition. Just for completeness and on the record, I have with the community visited a salmon farm recently and I have met representatives of the petitioners. I have heard views to me personally, which I will directly share. Clearly, both the salmon farming industry and the wild salmon industry are both significant and important industries for Scotland. Whatever we choose to do with it, it is a perfectly proper petition. We should certainly treat the matter seriously and make sure that we can come to a balanced view at the end of the day and help inform public policy. Thank you, convener. There are no parties participating in your recent visit that yourself and others went on. I likewise have visited a farm and it was in the back of a request to come and do so, but it is also keen to be seen to be addressing the understandable public concern that is about this issue and growing public concern. I understand that you are going to make a suggestion and we will maybe take it forward from there. I have also visited a fish farm when I was previously a member of the Parliament, although not recently. That is an issue that has been going on for years, and I think that it is a really important issue that we should address. I look forward to the suggestions that you are going to make, hopefully, in a moment. I will need to chastise myself for being remiss and not saying at the outset of this discussion that I should have declared an interest in that I do have a wild fishery interest in my register of interest, which members can look at. I chastise myself and I take the points that have been raised. I would suggest that the committee might like to consider continuing or allowing the petition to continue and to look, probably early in 2018, to address the points that John has raised and other people on the committee have raised to carry out an inquiry into aquaculture. I think that it would be extremely helpful to try and find common ground between the interests that Stuart has said is very important to Scotland as a whole. I would seek the committee's approval to carry that out. Are we agreed on that? There is one other thing to bring to the committee's attention. There has been an opportunity to have some research carried out by Spice of the literature and environmental impacts of farm salmon. I propose to ask them to carry that out in advance of the inquiry that we will carry out. I also would like to make it clear that I have been in conversation with the convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee to discuss how we can look at this together to make the best possible impact. The research also looks particularly at the issues of the countries such as Norway and Ireland. That issue has been going on for years. There is specific research that has been done in those countries, which I think could be useful to the committee. Absolutely. It is a literature review and it will be as broad and far ranging as we can do to allow a proper informed decision to be made. If everyone is happy with that, I would like to move on to agenda item 3, which is consideration of two negative instruments as detailed on the agenda. Members should note that no motions to a null have been received in relation to those instruments and there have been no representations to the committee directly on those instruments. Are there any comments that the members would like to make on those instruments? Does the committee agree that it does not wish to make any recommendation in relation to those instruments? That is agreed and that concludes today's meeting.