 Good morning. Welcome to the 14th meeting of 2017 of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. We have apologies from David Stewart and Maurice Golden, and we've been joined by the substitute member of the committee, Peter Chapman MSP. Before we move to the first item on the agenda, I'd like to remind everyone present to switch off mobile phones and electronic devices, as they may affect the broadcasting system. Agenda item 1 concerns the committee considering whether to take items 6 and 7 in private. Are we all agreed? Agenda item 2 is subordinate legislation. The second item on the agenda is for the committee to take evidence on the forestry environmental impact assessment Scotland regulations 2017, SSI 2017-113. A motion to annul has been lodged by Mark Ruskell MSP. As is the usual practice in such circumstances, we will have an evidence session first with the cabinet secretary for the rural economy and connectivity to ask questions or seek clarifications. I welcome the cabinet secretary this morning, along with his officials Bill Brash, Claire of Dodd, Barry McCaffrey and Brendan Callaghan. Cabinet secretary, do you wish to make any opening remarks? Yes, thank you very much, and good morning everybody. I very much welcome the opportunity to present and explain this SSI to you and committee members. Its amendments form part of European law and they must be incorporated into the domestic legislation of member states by 16 May. Failure to transpose would expose Scotland and the UK to a risk of infraction. In transposing the directive into law in Scotland, I have sought to achieve an appropriate balance between ensuring that our approach to creating woodland protects the environment and biodiversity and creating an enabling approach to planting for businesses and communities. As we are all aware, creating woodland and planting trees is a win-win situation for Scotland, particularly to help to achieve our ambitious climate change targets, with trees soaking up approximately 10 million tonnes of CO2 each year. The change that I understand is causing concern relates to increasing the threshold for EIA for forestry projects outwith sensitive areas. I want to reassure members by putting that change in its proper context, and it is not happening in isolation. The SSI introduces another change that would increase the definition of sensitive areas to include pt soils. There is no threshold for a forestation in sensitive areas, meaning all such schemes must be screened, and in national scenic areas the threshold remains at 2 hectares. The proposal to increase the threshold for environmental impact assessment from 5 to 20 hectares outwith sensitive areas is a modest and proportionate action given the pressing need to increase woodland creation in Scotland. Although Wales and Northern Ireland are not proposing to change their threshold, members may wish to note that the corresponding legislation in England proposes an increase to 50 hectares for low-risk areas. Since the year 2000, only five schemes out of 800 below 20 hectares have required an environmental statement following EIA screening—a maximum area over those 17 years of 100 hectares. The legislation will not result in a reversion to planting up the flow country. That cannot happen. The new regulation expands the definition of sensitive areas, where EIA is always required to include pt soils and only applies to very small schemes. That suggests that there is little risk to increasing the threshold to 20 hectares. Raising the threshold will enable better deployment of staff resources, convener, which should be focused on encouraging more and larger schemes to come forward, while also monitoring those to better address the environmental impact of genuinely difficult and potentially damaging schemes. It means that we will be better placed to manage and minimise the potential impact of planting. The change in threshold will also provide an important signal about this Government and, indeed, this Parliament's commitment to increasing planting and diversity of woodland creation schemes. We know that concerns about the EIA process can deter potential applicants with modest low-risk schemes. In particular, that affects farmers, the very group that all parties are encouraging to integrate more woodland into their enterprises. It may also affect crofters as well. I want to reassure that good protections against the risk of those small schemes causing environmental harm will remain. Legislation includes provisions for exceptional cases, allowing the FCS to still require an environmental statement or to take enforcement action on a small project below 20 hectares. It is an important safeguard that there is still the ability to take such enforcement action. The vast majority of five-hectare schemes are, convener, likely to cost more than £25,000. In reality, there are very, very few planting schemes that are undertaken without grant funding. The procedures surrounding the approval of grant require all the appropriate checks against the UK forestry standard to ensure that that environmental risk is mitigated. Mr Callaghan is an expert and can fully explain all those matters if members feel that that would be useful. New guidance will be developed on implementing the amended regulations. That guidance will be clearer and will ensure that proper scrutiny is given to genuinely higher-risk schemes. Initial discussions relating to that guidance are already under way with both SNH and SEPA who support that change. We would welcome input from wider stakeholders such as Scottish Environment Link. That work will complement the relevant workstreams in the McKinnon delivery plan. I think, too, that there is more we can do to raise awareness of that guidance and of our expectations on those bringing forward planting schemes so that developers and communities are clear about the responsibilities to safeguard and protect the environment in which they propose to create woodland. In conclusion, convener, I hope that this addresses concerns that have been raised and will help to persuade committee members not to annul this SSI. Planting more of the right trees in the right places is something that I think we all support. We need to focus our effort where it is needed and this change allows us to do just that. I and my colleagues are happy to answer any questions that you and your members may have. Thank you for that opportunity. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I think that Richard Lyle has a question. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Can I ask you a couple of questions? We all know that Scottish forestry is worth a billion pounds to the economy each year and supports 25,000 jobs. Would you agree that modern forestry planting is also creating new habitats for wildlife, places for recreation and making a huge contribution to meeting Scotland's ambitious climate change targets? Yes, I do. I think that this really is a win-win situation. More forestry is good for the environment and it is good for the economy. You have alluded, Mr Lyle, to the estimated value to the economy. It is £1,000 million a year and 25,000 jobs. Therefore, I see that this regulation is intended to safeguard the environment but also to enable it to facilitate the further expansion of the economic opportunities for Scotland that come from this truly green industry. I am grateful indeed for the support of many organisations, including Confor, who are represented here and present here this meeting today, UKFPA David Solman and many other organisations, including those that are seen as environmental ones. I note that Confor is represented here today. Would you agree with them in a submission that they have sent in that they are saying, however, that the reality is that unnecessary complex procedures for approving planting applications means that Scotland has failed to meet existing planting targets for a number of years? Would you agree with me that we need to move heaven and earth in order to reach our targets in order to ensure that we meet them? Yes, I agree with Confor's statements. We want to focus the time of our resources in Forestry Commission Scotland on the most important cases. At the moment, the statistics show that only five out of eight hundred cases that have been screened actually went to an EIA. That means that over 99 per cent of the work was not required. This is duplicatory work. This is work that is carried out in, broadly speaking, when the grant system applies in order that the requirements of the UK Forest Standards are met. In other words, you cannot get a grant without safeguarding the environment. You cannot get a grant without looking into the environmental matters. Mr Callaghan can go into all the details of this, but I am entirely satisfied that what we are doing today safeguards the environment. That is the fundamental point that I want to make to Mr Ruskell and, indeed, to all other committee members. However, by removing that duplicatory work—150 cases a year, that work, that type of individual case officer, skilled professionals, can be put to better use by looking at the really important cases where there may convener be a serious issue in relation to the environment. I think that this regulation is intended to remove duplication and allow staff time to be focused on the real cases where there is a genuine environmental interest. Lastly, in some cases, the current procedure causes delay of, in some cases, two months or more. I think that delay has been identified as one of the barriers to more investment. All of these matters flow from the Jim McKinnon report, which I was very grateful received a pretty wide support when we debated these general issues in Parliament fairly recently. Can I ask the cabinet secretary to—there is a claim out there that the UK Forestry Standard is not a suitable alternative to EIA as it is primarily aimed at woodland management as opposed to creation? How do you respond to that? Well, I put this claim to my officials and basically I respond to it by saying that it is not correct, and I think that it might help if my officials could give the technical detail because I am not an expert in these matters, but that essentially is the answer that I was given. I do not know if it would help if Mr Callaghan could respond to the question in his way. Certainly, cabinet secretary. Yes, the UKFS covers all aspects of woodland management, including woodland creation. You might expect to be focused to be on woodland management because Scotland has 1.4 million hectares of existing woodlands and is aiming to create 10,000 hectares a year, but there are a number of very specific guidelines and requirements which are worded and aimed specifically at woodland creation. I am happy to give a few examples. It is a major focus because, despite being a small component of the overall area of woodlands, it is recognised that it is potentially a high-risk area because of the land use change. For example, one of the requirements under the biodiversity area would be the implications of woodland creation and management for biodiversity in the wider environment should be considered, including the roles of forest habitats and urban habitats in ecological connectivity. That is an example. I could give you some more if you wanted. That is fine. Mark Ruskell. Thank you, convener. Good morning, cabinet secretary, and thank you for joining us. I appreciate the time that you are spending on this. I have a couple of questions. I am just looking here at the Forestry Commission Scotland website under the environmental impact assessment pages. It states that the regulations have been recently amended and that they have come into force already today, so that is a little puzzling. Have I missed about here? No, I think that that is really for legal reasons and that is why we have Barry McCaffrey here who perhaps can explain the legal framework for these particular SIs, which, of course, with a particular deadline to transpose and implement in national law the general requirements for EIA across all the board. Perhaps Mr McCaffrey could explain that, convener, because it is a perfectly sensible fair question. That date flows from the amended directive itself, which required all member states to implement the changes to the EIA regime in time for 16 May. Together with other Administrations throughout the UK, that is what we have done. Technically, they are in force as of today. The SSI is coming to this committee in this Parliament today. If I put in an application for a block of forestry at 9.30 this morning, it would not be in force. Is it not doing a bit of a disservice to this Parliament that you are bringing forward regulations that have not been approved yet? No, they are subject to negative procedures, therefore they have taken effect and we have laid them in respect to the 28-day laying requirements, as is normal for SSIs. They are not subject to affirmative procedure for approval. I have a couple of other questions. You state that you believe that the provision of environmental impact assessment regulations is actually slowing down the planting rate in Scotland. You have just identified that there has been only, I think, six or eight EIAs that have been completed out of 800 applications, five. If it is five, how is that actually slowing down the planting rate? What is the analysis on that in terms of the economic cost? My understanding of the process is that, first, there is a screening process, which is light touch, which is about identifying environmental impact, only then do we move on to a full environmental impact assessment. Is it the screening process or the full EIA that is slowing down planting? I discussed all that with officials, and Mr Callaghan could perhaps give a certain practitioner's guide. Essentially, at the moment, 795 cases out of 800 had a process that was not necessary because no EIA was needed. That process, which led to that conclusion, was one that occurred in 795 cases. Only in five was the EIA necessary. That screening process seems to me to be involved in an element of duplication. I was careful to say in the remarks that I made a moment ago that in some cases that could be causative of delay, not all cases, but in some cases two months or more delay could ensue for a process that essentially is duplicating a process that is carried out when the grant application is determined, because you cannot get a grant without complying with the UK forest standards. I am told, although I am not an expert, that those are the most rigorous in the world, and they are designed to protect the environment. Were that not the case, I would not be here, and we would not be debating the law today. I am satisfied that those standards protect the environment and that you cannot get a grant without complying with them to prove that your scheme does not damage the environment. The screening work seems to me logically, as Jim McKinnon identified in his useful report that is an element of duplication, which, if removed, will allow us to not only streamline the system in some cases removed delay, but also allow the staff attention in those 795 cases, and those cases each take, I gather, about one day or so in average. All those working days could be put to better use, I think, to achieve the targets that we all share. I do not know if I have encapsulated that, but perhaps Mr Callaghan could add anything. Of course. Worth clarifying, the 800 cases are the cases in the category between 5 and 20 hectares, so that is the population that would be affected by this change since our records go back to 2002 on that. In addition to that, the cases above that, there are another 2,000 cases in total, and the figure is approximately 60 of those cases required environmental statements. It is a different population. That is not the total number of environmental statements in forestry. The total number is—the projects that required statements were around about 60 in total. That is a final question, convener. It is in relation to pre-notification. My understanding is that, in Wales, they have not adopted this approach. In England, as the current secretary has already outlined, there is a higher threshold of 50 hectares, but they have put in place in England a pre-notification, which would at least allow environmental issues to be flagged up early on, not at the end when UKFS needs to kick in before it can have a felling licence granted. However, at the beginning of the process, pre-notification is part of the regulation in England. What was the thinking around not building that into the regulations in Scotland? The cabinet secretary has asked me to answer this one, if that is okay. We certainly see that as an additional process. Given that we have just undertaken the McKinnon review and we are looking at the most efficient and effective way of managing the woodland creation process, we did consider that, but we thought that it was an additional step and that it would not offer the same efficiencies. As part of the McKinnon review process, we are looking at the end-to-end. One of his recommendations is that there should be much more upfront, right at the beginning, engagement with stakeholders and engagement between the developer and the forestry commission. We want to capture that in a revised process, revised guidance, and we think that that is the way to deal with the pre-screening. We are very keen on it. We are nervous that by incorporating that into legislation, it creates a burden and it is more difficult to be proportionate in that process. I think that discussing this matter earlier is a perfectly sensible area to explore. My understanding is a matter of practice, and Mr Callaghan, correct me if I will get this right, that when an application comes in, then the competent officers in the forestry commission will not just stay in the office, they will look at the proposed site, a proposed area of plantations. Very often, the convener will know it from their local knowledge, but they will go and inspect the locust, the proposed plantation, and then they will assist the applicant in order to identify any environmental issues that they feel are required. That proactive, helpful, collaborative approach is one that, as I understand it, is, quite rightly so, part and parcel of our forestry process and of the good work that our forestry officers do. As a matter of practice, that must be a good thing. However, the guidance that I mentioned in my opening statement will, of course, further deal with that. As I said, I undertake to work with Scottish Environment Link and other parties to make sure that that guidance secures the widest possible support, because that is what I wish to do in forestry matters, as I think that members are aware. Good morning, cabinet secretary and officials. I am, frankly, really surprised that this has been put up on the Forestry Commission's Scotland website before the committee was in a position to make its deliberation today. It may be a negative instrument, but it is coming to committee today. If we had concerns, which some of us have, to the point of one member wanting to annul, we are now in a position where it is already on the website. I would like to ask, firstly, why this has taken—it has only come to us on the day when we have to meet the EU deadline. Secondly, how far in the future is the infraction proceedings and the risk of fines, because I understand that there are phasings to that. I do feel that this shows a disrespect for the committee and the Parliament building on what Mark Ruskell said. I am quite concerned about it. I wonder if you, cabinet secretary, or any officials could comment on that. I am grateful to have the opportunity to try to allay members' concerns, because plainly we mean absolutely no disrespect to this committee, and that is not something that I would tolerate. My understanding is that, because it is a negative instrument, it will be enforced unless it is annulled today. If it is annulled today as a result of the democratic procedures of this Parliament, it will be annulled. It will be of no effect. I will ensure that the website of the Forestry Commission is immediately, today, altered to that effect. The reason why, as I understand it—I discussed it briefly with members beforehand—is because, at the moment, it is the law in force simply because of the requirement today to comply with EU law. That requirement is, in practical terms, discharged, if you see what I mean. We have passed a law, we have met the deadline and the Forestry Commission because it is currently the law unless annulled are quite right to display a notice on the website of what the law is. It may only last half a day or until the end of the session if members are so minded to annull, but the process is the correct legal one. It is absolutely, in no way a matter of discretion, it is a process that is correct legally to demonstrate that the Forestry Commission have immediately complied with and met the particular law about transposition of EU law into the domestic legal system. It is purely a technicality. I am grateful that Claudia Beamish has raised that, because it is a somewhat arcane legal answer that I have given, but that is because it is an arcane legal matter. It is absolutely the correct position. I am advised that there was, in fact, no committee on 9 May, so that matter was put back to today and today being the last day. Obviously, I have no criticism of the committee in this regard, and the motion to annull I think was tabled on Friday. I do not know. I think that Mr Brash is actually the expert in here, so maybe I am chintering on when he could provide a more succinct explanation, Mr Brash. Basically, we worked with our lawyers and we have 28 days that we can lay the legislation, although Parliament, for negative legislation, although Parliament requires 40 days. We did do that. It had gone through, along with the other legislation that will come to later, had gone through the Delegated Powers Law Reform Committee and was therefore ready to come to the lead committee to further back. However, when I was lasing with the clerks, I was told that unfortunately it cannot be seen on the 9th when it was perfectly ready to do that. It had gone through DPLRC in early April, so it was available for the committee. However, because of that meeting, it decided to bundle all those pieces of legislation together, some of which went through DPLRC quite a while ago—the electricity one, for instance. I am afraid that we were in the hands of the committee when they could fit us into their schedule, but it was available to be seen. That is correct. The committee did not sit last week and that has been a factor in it, but you can understand the concerns that have been expressed by members today around this. It has been good to get this issue aired on the record. With respect, that does not answer my question about, if it had not been put up till after the committee had heard it today, how soon would it have been in terms of UK infraction process that we would have jeopardised our situation as your situation in Scottish Government, which I, of course, would have to take into account? I understand that there are several phases before we would get to that. Would it not have been more appropriate—perhaps it might be something that could be more appropriate in the future—to put it up later in the day, as long as there was not a motion to annul? That is still in my view. I want to push this point, seems a little bit ahead of things. It is the law now in accordance with the negative procedure. As a Government, we must comply with the law and we must do so immediately. There is just no question about that. Regarding the infraction process, it is a process, it is not an event, and Claudia Beamish is quite right that there are stages of infraction. If that is important, I am sure that Mr Brash can explain what those stages are, but, plainly, from my point of view, as a Government minister, I want to avoid any infraction, if I possibly can, and to take all prudent steps so to do. I think that the Forestry Commission were right to do what they did, which is to comply with the law. If it is altered, they will immediately comply with the law and make appropriate amendments to the website today, in the course of today, if that were to be the decision of this committee and this Parliament. I have got one other question, unless anyone wants to take up this point further. It was just for clarity, cabinet secretary, about the UK FS scheme, which has been highlighted to me—and this may or may not be correct, but I would seek clarity on this—that it does not have a statutory status that is in the main voluntary and that its status is open to question on private land. I think that it would be helpful just to have some clarity on those issues, but it may well be misinformation, but just for the record that would be helpful. Well, I think that, if I could pass to Mr Callaghan, he could probably give you the authoritative answer if that is permitted, convener. Yes, certainly. The UK FS brings together a whole suite of guidelines and statutory requirements that exist in law that are relevant to forestry. Many aspects of it are statutory. There may not be specific forestry legislation that could be to do with water or protected habitats, designated sites and things of that nature. In terms of the forest manager, in one place, he has all of the statutory requirements and the good practice guidance that we would expect him to comply with. The real bite is that it is, in a sense, almost statutory because it is part of our Scottish Rural Development programme. The condition of providing grant aid is that you must comply with the UK Forestry Standard, and that is pseudo-legal in that it is part of our approved programme with Europe, and that is enacted in legislation in Scotland. In a roundabout way, the guidance becomes almost of a legal standing. Thank you, that is helpful. Okay, thank you. Does any member have any other questions on this topic? No? Okay, before we move to agenda item 3 and the consideration of the motion to null, Cabinet Secretary, I am mindful that you have clear dod with you offering expertise in this area. I want to just raise a question about one of the other SSIs, if I may, and that is the SSI on flood risk management. There was a consultation in 2016 on those proposals, but it did not include flooding activity. I would just like to be clear why, when there is a SSI on flood risk management, that was the case. We originally had the opportunity to be part of the project with the number of other regimes that were taking forward in that main consultation. At the time, it was felt that due to the technical and specific nature of flood risk and the fact that we had well established close working relationships with local authorities, it was decided that we would—the decision was taken that we would develop our own timeline. A full consultation was not carried out on our regulations, but engagement was undertaken with SEPA and local authority experienced flood risk management practitioners to explore the various issues. The changes provided for in the flooding regs are mainly procedural and there are no material changes to the way the assessments are carried out or when assessments need to be carried out. The work on the other regimes did precede the work that we undertook on our regulations. It was found that, during the work, the provisions in our flooding regulations are broadly equivalent to those proposed in the other regimes. That main regime did consult local authorities, SEPA and other EIA practitioners. It was felt that there was no added value for us to undertake a full consultation on our regulations. Feedback from that consultation was used to inform and develop our flooding regulations. Thank you for that. It is useful that we get that on the record. If members are content, we will move to agenda item 3, which is consideration of motion S5M-05579, asking the committee to annull the forestry environmental impact assessment Scotland regulations 2017-SSI 2017-113. It should be noted that Scottish Government officials cannot take part in the formal debate. I remind members that, according to rule 12.2A paragraph 4 of the Parliament's standing order that substitute members have the right to vote. The motion will be moved on an opportunity for a formal debate on the SSI, which can procedurally last up to 90 minutes. I invite Mark Ruskell to speak to and move the motion if he so wishes that the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee recommends that the forestry environmental impact assessment Scotland regulations be annulled. Thank you very much, convener. I have listened to the previous gender item, and I intend to move the motion to annull. Having said that, I think that there is a lot that we can all agree on around this table. We all agree on the economic importance of forestry, the fact that it creates 25,000 jobs in some of our most impoverished rural areas in Scotland. We can also all agree that the Scottish Government's forestry planting targets—15,000 hectares every year—will make a welcome and very significant contribution to Scotland's climate change plan. We can also agree that any regulations that place an undue burden—I emphasise that word, undue burden, on the forestry sector—we need to look at simplifying. However, I do not believe that the current environmental impact assessment regulations place an undue burden on the forestry sector. EIA is there because we need to look before we leap. We need to plan properly, and we need to get that planning in place up front within the process. Now, I hear what the cabinet secretary says about screening, but screening is not a full environmental impact assessment. It does not need hundreds and hundreds of reports this big of dead tree and consultancy time in order to pursue a forestry application It is a relatively simple process, but it does uncover potential environmental impacts that then may need in a very small number of cases to be given further consideration. It does bring transparency, and I know through undertaking a number of items of case work in the occals near where I stay that this EIA process can be very beneficial. In one particular example, we had a number of blocks of forestry that were proposed in an area. There were concerns about access, archaeology and biodiversity. The process was very constructive and involved throughout the environmental assessment process. Stakeholders were involved with the management company and the proposal of the forestry application. As a result of that, it was an iterative process where positive changes were made. I think that now we have a, in one particular area, very good forestry planting scheme that has been approved. It has areas of commercial forestry. It gets the right balance, but that only happened because there was a very good upfront planning process that the EIA had required as a result of that. I am concerned about this raise in the threshold because I can see what might happen in terms of cumulative impact. Proposers of forestry planting may well go forward and say, well, okay, we'll package up blocks of forestry just under 20 hectares, which would then enable a much simpler process to be put through, but one that would potentially miss concerns about archaeology, biodiversity, access, all the issues that can sometimes arise with forestry. The UK forestry standard, again, we could all welcome that and welcome its embeddedness into the guidance that the cabinet secretary is working on, but it's not about planning. It's not about identifying where, it's not about identifying why, and it's not about identifying what the impact will be upfront within the planning process early on. It is ostensibly about good management. I accept the points that have been made that, if you want to then go for a forestry felling licence at the end of this, you have to meet UKFS standards, so I applaud it, but it's not an upfront planning tool, and we shouldn't pretend that it is. I don't see why to meet the terms of the European directive, we need to jump to this 20 hectare threshold. In Wales, this approach has been rejected. In England, as I mentioned earlier on, there is an increase up to 50 hectares, which is worrying, but there is this full prior notification process that has been brought in. If the cabinet secretary wishes to remove the screening process, we need clarity as to what is that upfront part of this process that will identify potential environmental impacts at the outset and enable stakeholders to get involved and to help to design the schemes in a more environmentally protective way. We have had the comment in the earlier item from Mr Callaghan that prior notification was something that was very keen on, but it could also be seen as a burden. Now, I am not sure which one it is here. If we had some certainty that this guidance is going to require prior notification so that the proposers of these forestry applications will have to go to the Forestry Commission and there will be an iterative process that will involve stakeholders. That would bring some comfort. That is the bare minimum that they have in England, which I think that we could do a lot better in this Parliament. I will leave my opening comments there. I will formally move the motion in my name. Can I open the talk to other members? I would like to also speak in support in favour of the annulment of the negative instrument. I have listened very carefully to what you have said, cabinet secretary, and have had some reassurance on the points raised. When it comes to the point at which grants are applied for, that is not the same as looking at the point of the creation of the new scheme. The level of scrutiny that is there at the moment in terms of the hectares is, in my view, the correct one. I note that that was rejected in Wales, as my colleague Mark Ruskell has highlighted, and that there were clear reasons of an environmental nature for that as well. I am, I would like to say for the record, extremely supportive of the climate change targets, of course. I do hear the point that you make, cabinet secretary, about the support for planting targets and the judgment that will be made if that does go through and remain as the Scottish Government hopes it will in relation to Peatland's and the flow country. I think that that is important, but I am not reassured to the degree that I feel comfortable with rejecting the EIS as it stands at present, so I will support the motion to annul. Kate Forbes. I appreciate the points that my colleagues have made. The briefing that was received by RSPB, although I think that it is notable that we did not receive many briefings on that, and RSPB was the only one against those changes. I think that the big question is whether there are standards that are fit for purpose to ensure that we meet environmental expectations when we are planting. The fact that 795 applications or 795 cases did not require EIA and did not require, met the standards, I think, is quite noticeable. I think that the cabinet secretary makes an important point in terms of planting being incredibly expensive full stop, and although Claudia Beamish makes the point that a plan for grant funding is not necessarily at the point of planning initially, we know that, in terms of common sense, it is highly likely that any planting is going to require grant funding and therefore is going to need to meet the UKFS standards. From that point of view, while accepting the points that my colleagues make about the need to meet high standards, high environmental standards, I think that the vast majority of planting is going to require grant funding and therefore would require to meet the highest environmental standards. Over the last number of years, I have sat in the committee and listened to comments made by members that we weren't planting enough. In fact, the Government was getting hammered on various occasions by other members of other parties that the Government wasn't planting enough in. Now that we are trying to plant more, we are now getting castigated because we are trying to plant more, and I find it strange. Again, I take condisins ASPB, but I am really impressed with the conforter. I will state it again for the simple fact that Scottish Forestry is worth £1 billion each year. If we do not keep planting, the forestry is going to decline and the excellent business that supports 25,000 jobs will be at risk in the number of years. Again, I missed out a point that is in the paper. If the economic and environmental success story is to continue, Scotland needs to plant more trees. Why do not people get it? We need to plant more trees. As far as I am concerned, we are trying to resolve it, and we should be supporting the subject. I concur with the comments from Kate Forbes and Richard Lyle. It is worth noting that there has been no objection from SWT or WWF Scotland. A salient point in the debate is the Woodland Trust Scotland comments where it has said that it is prepared to accept the increase in the threshold in nonsensitive areas, given the current forest planning process and the safeguards provided by UKFS and the application of regional forest strategies. I would like to come back briefly on a point of clarification. I do not believe in any of the remarks that I made that I said that I was not positive about the Scottish Government's planting regime. In fact, I have been extremely supportive of it and pushed forward on agroforestry and all sorts of issues and tried to make sure that the SRDP schemes were there as well. The point that I am making is that my concern is serious enough about the environmental arrangements at the stage of planting. I think that if we are having forestry, which we must have, and we must meet our targets—which I am fully supportive of—it has to be done in an environmentally appropriate way, and that is where I am. I support the Government's aim to modernise and make the framework simpler. I think that it has held back the planting targets, and I am very supportive of increasing the planting targets. I think that we need to put procedures in place to firstly hit the 10,000 hectares and then go on to hit the 15,000 hectares. Eventually, I am supportive of that. We have got to recognise that this is a modest change. It is lifting the hectares from 5 to 20, but it is in low-risk areas to start with. Nobody is suggesting that in high-risk areas that this will take place. In my opinion, every planting scheme has to adhere to the UK forestry standard, which I think is a high standard in its own right. I see no problem in raising the area to 20 hectares, and I support Kate Forbes and Richard Lyle, and they are thoughts on that. I would like to echo Peter Chapman's comments, and I have a further comment saved in my register of interests, particularly regarding forestry, as previously declared. I put it in record that I do not actually agree with Richard Lyle that we should be banging on without just to reach targets. It is very important that we take recognition of the importance of the environment. However, the reason that I am supporting the Government is that I am satisfied that the changes will not have a negative impact on the environment, and I think that that is the most important thing. For the record, I probably have a number of members who have some questions coming into this session. For me, they have been answered. I think that they are modest and proportionate changes. Like other members, I note the absence of any concerns being raised by a considerable number of respected environmental organisations, and maybe more than anything I am heartened by the cabinet secretary's comment about consulting with the environment link and the development of the guidance, so I would be inclined to support that. However, can I invite the cabinet secretary to respond? I thank all members who have participated in the debate, which has been an interesting and useful debate. I would like to make a number of points. First, I would like to emphasise the two members who have indicated that they still have concerns that we are keen to address those concerns and substance as matters go forward with the guidance. I have at the outset emphasised that we will engage with the environment link. I have met NGOs such as Joe O'Hara, the head of the Forestry Commission and colleagues, and we will continue that because we want to maintain as much of our consensus as possible. It is fair to point out that under the new directive and the legislation, the screening process itself is more strict than it was before. It is a point that perhaps has not been made. That is correct for larger high-risk areas. We looked at 50 hectares as a case down south, but it came to the conclusion that a more moderate measure of 20 hectares was appropriate, so that was a value judgment. Perhaps we are between the Welsh and the English approaches, but it is a moderate proposal, as Mr Chapman said. That is a good thing. I want to stress that there is no threshold at all for land with peat of 50 centimetres or more or sensitive areas. They will have the screening for EIA, and many members have referred to that. That is important. I am grateful for the support of the Woodlands Trust, which I saw in Locharkac, which I visited a few weeks ago. I am grateful for that support. We are aware of the fact that the WWF produced a report a year ago on their bouts that, unless we increase our planting targets on these islands, then 80 per cent of the timber that is used and written will have to be imported in just a few decades' time. That is a staggering figure and one that we have to tackle. I think that Mr Lyle is correct to say that we need to increase our planting targets for the environment, but also for the economy. For the economy, Somillers are already stating that they are concerned about the drop in the availability of wood in just over a decade's time or so. That is a matter of some commercial significance for some of them. Given that they are the mainstay of many rural economies, we have to pay heed to that, and I am gratified that all members take that on board. There is a lot more that I can say, convener, but what I want to stress in taking forward this work is that we will emphasise the importance of early engagement. That engagement with stakeholders will continue. It is not affected by the removal of the requirement for screening, so communities are the subject of close engagement. That is encouraged as it is engagement with the developer, and that will be very much at the heart of the new guidance procedure. I am more than happy to keep members of the committee informed as to the progress and to share our proposals if members of the committee would like in relation to the guidance in order to further reassure those members who I have failed to reassure today. I invite members to support the Government's SSI today and reject the motion to annul. I thank you for the opportunity to speak on those matters. Mark Ruskell, to wind up and indicate whether you wish to press or withdraw the motion. Thanks, convener. I thank all members and the Cabinet Secretary for their contributions to this quite measured, thoughtful discussion. I think that at the end of the day, to answer directly, Richard Lam's point, this is about getting the right trees in the right places. We all want more of them, but they have to be in the right places. We need some kind of environmental guidance around this. I think that the reassurance that the cabinet secretary has given about the creation of this new guidance and the on-going work with environmental NGOs and other stakeholders to get that right, to ensure that there is a proper planning process in place here that can step in perhaps where screening is leaving, gives me some reassurance, but I'm still concerned that there isn't a direct commitment within this SSI to prior notification. That's the backstop that exists in the English legislation, which is arguably weak, but has been strengthened by the addition of that prior notification. I haven't actually heard the cabinet secretary say that this guidance will incorporate that. There needs to be a backstop here, there needs to be a role for an agency to step in early doors and say their environmental issues with this planting application, and we therefore need to step in. We don't have that. For those reasons, I'm not reassured enough to withdraw the motion at this stage. I'd like to push it to the vote. The question is that motion S5M-05579, in the name of Mark Ruskell, be approved. Are we all agreed? No. We go to a division. Members who are in favour of the motion, please raise their hands. Those who are against, abstentions? No abstentions. The result is that there were two votes in favour, eight votes against. The committee's report will confirm the outcome of the debate. Do we have the agreement from the committee for the convener to approve the final report? We do. The motion is disagreed to. I thank the cabinet secretary and officials for attendance this morning. We now move on to agenda item 4. I'll give a couple of moments for the officials to leave. We move to agenda item 4, which is for the committee to consider four negative instruments that are listed on the agenda. They are namely the electricity works environmental impact assessment Scotland regulations 2017, SSI 2017, slash 101, flood risk management, flood protection schemes, potentially vulnerable areas and local plan districts, Scotland amendment regulations 2017, SSI 2017, 112, agriculture, land drainage and irrigation projects, environmental impact assessment Scotland regulations 2017, SSI 2017, slash 114, marine works environmental impact assessment Scotland regulations 2017, SSI 2017, 115. Richard Lyle? What concerns me, convener, is that in each of these, and I'll draw, regulations contain minor drafting errors. Regulation 13.5b refers to regulation 11.1, but it was intended to refer to regulation 11.2, and then you go on to other ones. It could be more clearer, it could be a drawly instrument. We've referred it the wrong way round. Can we say to someone somewhere, can you get these right the first time, please? Thank you. That's a view that the DPLR committee has expressed on previous occasions. Any other comments on these? Okay. Do we wish to take up Mr Lyle's point as a committee in writing to the Government or this, or do we entrust that task to the DPLR committee? Again, I remember the last time I was on this committee, there was serious concern that several points were being missed or not correctly laid instruments. Basically, I know the committee at that time did write to the Government. There was concerns. It does strike me, however, personally that these errors are minor drafting errors. They're about clarity, they're not major, so that's my view, I would express. We can write to the DPLR raising this issue or to the Government. I'm not going to press if it's not filmed. Okay. Are members minded that we write to the Government? No? No? Okay. I'm afraid that I might not be able to hear something. I just wanted to highlight it. You've done that on the record. Can I ask the committee whether it's agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to these instruments? We are agreed. Agenda item 5 for today is consideration of a draft annual report for the Parliament a year from May 12, 2016 to May 11, 2017. Hasn't time flown? I refer members to the draft report and invite any comments. Claudia Beamish. The report reflects very well in my view the wide range and depth of the scrutiny that we've attempted in this committee. I would like to see, under point 3, about the draft climate change plan a little more detail, because this was one of the major areas that we scrutinised and took evidence on in this year. I wonder whether we might highlight the issue of how the committee was agreed in our report to look further and scrutinise the final plan further and then to take forward the monitoring of the plan once finalised as it develops. I would be keen to highlight those two points or possibly others if other committee members felt that that was appropriate, but I feel a little bit more detail on that area would be valuable. It does seem at a reasonable point. Any other views on that? Do you want to mention the debates that we've had in the annual report? The debates in the chamber? I, like climate change to your management. That seems like a reasonable suggestion as well. We add those in too, because we have had a couple of debates. In terms of agreeing the wording that Claudia Beamish has suggested, can I suggest that we clerks draft a formal wording and we send it around members for agreement? Rather than wait until next week, is that okay? So, if you would respond to that by tomorrow evening, that would be helpful. We can get the report completed. Is that agreed? So, the annual report will be published next week. The future meetings, the next meeting on 23 May, the committee will be considering its work programme and petition PE1615 on state-regulated licensing for game board hunting in Scotland. As agreed earlier, we will now move into private session. I ask that the public gallery be cleared as the public part of the meeting is closed.