 Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the sixth meeting of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee in session 6. Before I can begin, I can remind all those committee members using electronic devices to turn them to silence. I would also like to apologise for the delay. We had a technical issue and we would like to thank the minister for her patience and the witnesses in other sessions. Our first item of business is consideration of the Forestry Exemption Scotland Amendment Regulations 2021. Those regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure and are referred members to paper 1. I welcome Mary McCallan, minister for environment and land reform and her officials, Tim Gordon-Roberts, the regulations manager for Scottish Forestry and Amy Hogarth-Salister, the Scottish Government, and I invite the minister to make an opening statement. Despite the delay, I would still like to give some opening remarks, hopefully to give an overview to the committee of what we are proposing here. Thanks very much for having me along to discuss the Forestry Exemption Scotland Amendment Regulations 2021. The 2019 Forestry Exemption Regulations set out the failing activities that can be carried out without a specific failing licence from the regulator, which in this case is Scottish Forestry. The first amendment that I am proposing today is to correct a minor typographical error in the definition of statutory undertaker, where the word power will be amended to peer, as was originally intended. The second amendment is more substantive. It responds to an unintended consequence resulting from new planning regulations that were laid earlier this year, which created permitted development rights for peatland restoration projects. If not corrected, that could potentially result in the tree-failing component of peatland restoration schemes not being given full consideration and proper scrutiny by Scottish Forestry, as is of course supposed to be the case. At its worst could result in large-scale tree-failing as part of a peatland restoration project without sustainable forest management principles having been applied. The unintended consequence was identified during the development of the PDR for peatland restoration. The issue was identified and the proposed response that we are tabling today was agreed upon. It was agreed to be a pragmatic way of ensuring that sustainable forest management is fully integrated into the peatland restoration permitted development rights. Applicants for peatland restoration schemes that propose deforestation are already required to obtain an environmental impact assessment from Scottish Forestry. They are also required to apply to the local authority for the permitted development rights. The effect of that today will be that they also need to apply to Scottish Forestry for failing permission. On the practicalities of that very briefly, the failing permission can be applied for at the same time as requesting that environmental impact assessment that I mentioned, and we would advise that that is done prior to applying to the local authority for the permitted development rights. The planning period for peatland restoration PDRs is a rigorous process. It requires in-depth surveys and data analysis. I am comfortable that there is sufficient time within that process for this additional step of a failing licence to be agreed and obtained. Just to summarise—and not to speak for too long—the Scottish Government policy and including Scottish Forestry policy supports the restoration of peatlands involving deforestation. It shows that the change of land is in line with public benefit and can produce public goods. For example, the obvious is emissions reduction, but there are others, including biodiversity gain and community benefit. I hope that that has explained what we are proposing to do, and I am content to take any questions. Thank you, minister. I now invite questions from members. Based on what you have just said, it would be fair to say that this is an uncontentious piece of legislation. Yes, I think that that is right, Alasdair. Thank you. I think that it is uncontentious because I think that it is intuitive that if you are making a peatland restoration project and it requires deforestation that you should apply for a failing licence in doing that. I think that that is actually borne out in the behaviour of a lot of people who have been seeking to use the peatlands PDR because one of the things that I have been thinking about world is to what extent in the interim period have people applied for peatlands and this hasn't operated well. I am aware of two that are on-going and one has already begun preparing to apply for the failing licence, albeit that that wasn't strictly required, and the other is considering whether it is necessary. I think that it is intuitive and I think that it is uncontroversial. I agree, minister. I don't think that it is controversial in any way. However, I noted that there wasn't an impact study done, an impact assessment and I just wanted reassurance that to be able to apply for the failing licence in this circumstance that there was capacity and resource to be able to do it. You make a good point. The impact assessments across the board were carried out during the development of the peatland restoration permitted development, right? On that basis, I am content that this small amendment, which, as I say, was agreed and the course of to redress it was agreed during that process, is bound up in one of the same. I am content that the assessments made then still apply. Was there any suggestion that there were bodies out there that were looking to use the loophole to fell trees and not go through the process? Was there any suggestion that that might be the case and why that has been put in place? No, thanks, convener. I don't think that that is the case. I think that it was from the very beginning recognised as being something that was unintended and because the course of action to redress it was decided at that point as well. I think that it has always been understood that it shouldn't happen and I have no evidence that it has been sought to be exploited. In fact, as I was saying to Alistair, there are two on-going live applications for one of them. They are already applying for the failing licence, albeit that it is not strictly required at the moment. Given the push for peatland restoration to tackle climate change or whatever, do you foresee other pieces of legislation coming forward to ensure that that drive to restore more peatland is not used for other examples that might be harmful to the environment? I am not entirely sure what you mean, convener, but I think that we would both agree that we have these exceptionally stretching climate targets. One of the reasons that we can have them is because of the ample opportunity in our natural world to sequester carbon. In the next 5, 10 or 15 years, one of the biggest questions that we will all have to grapple with is about land use and land use change, which best takes us to those targets. Does it fairly and does it in a way that is also good for the nature crisis and is good for communities? It is quite interesting, because this is the epitome of those two issues coming together and how we balance public benefit. Thank you for coming to speak with us today about this subordinate legislation. I am just curious about any kind of burden that might be put on the forestry Scotland. Obviously, they already process filling applications, but I just want to hear if that creates any more burden. The underlying piece of my question is just understanding from my other committee that planning departments, so this whole licensing or permitting seems to be a very stretched area. I am quite concerned about that because, going forward, we are going to be shaping Scotland for the next 20 plus years, and it is just making sure that departments are resource properly, staffed and resource properly to do that work. No, thank you for that point. I agree, of course, as those become, as peatland restoration grows in popularity, as we do what we need to do in forestry and planting, pressure does mount on the folks that need to consider the applications. In this circumstance, I am absolutely confident that the Scottish Forestry has the capacity to take on what they will be required to as part of that. Actually, that takes weight off of the local authorities because, in the interim period, without the requirement for the filling license to be applied to the Scottish Forestry, it would have fallen to the local authority to consider it, and therefore that correction allows it to go back to the Scottish Forestry who I am confident can manage it. No further questions. We will now move to agenda item 2, subordinate legislation and the formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument. I invite Ms McAllen to move the motion for S6M-01170. Does any member wish to debate the motion? No, okay. Is the committee content to recommend approval of the instrument? Finally, is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off our report or under deliberations on this affirmative SSI? That completes consideration of the affirmative instrument. I thank the minister for our patience and our officials for attending today. We will now briefly suspend to allow you a change over off witnesses.