Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill

The Convener (Edward Mountain)

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the 19th meeting in 2017 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. I ask everyone please to ensure that all mobile phones are on silent. We have received apologies from Fulton MacGregor and Gail Ross.

The first item on the agenda is the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced to the Scottish Parliament on 10 May. We will begin our scrutiny of the bill by taking evidence from the Scottish Government’s bill team, the Forestry Commission and Forest Enterprise Scotland. We have a large panel of witnesses this morning. I welcome from the Scottish Government Carole Barker-Munro, who is the bill manager; Ginny Gardner, who is the head of forestry devolution; Catherine Murdoch, who is the deputy bill manager; and Gemma MacAllister, who is a solicitor. I also welcome Jo O’Hara, who is the head of the Forestry Commission Scotland; and Simon Hodge, who is the chief executive of Forest Enterprise Scotland.

The committee has a lot of questions and we have a large panel, so I ask witnesses to try to catch my eye if they want to speak. I urge committee members and witnesses to keep questions and answers as short as possible. We will go straight to exploring themes around the bill. Rhoda Grant will ask the first question.

Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

Was anything that had been in the consultation subsequently dropped from the bill?

Ginny Gardner (Scottish Government)

The consultation had three themes. The one that is particularly relevant to the bill is the legislation and regulation theme. We did not drop from the bill anything that was in the consultation. There was a commitment on sustainable forest management, a long-term commitment to forestry and a commitment that the details of regulation would be taken out of primary legislation and put in secondary legislation. Those were the main points under the legislation and regulation theme, and they are still in the bill.

I will say a little bit more about the other two elements. Our proposals on organisational structures are not in the bill, because we propose to bring the structures into the Scottish Government. That will give them the same legal identity as the Scottish ministers; therefore, there will not need to be a public identity for the public bodies in the bill.

The other element is cross-border arrangements, which are subject to negotiation with our colleagues in the United Kingdom and Welsh Governments. We will require a Scotland Act 1998 order to set them up, but we do not need anything in the bill.

Rhoda Grant

What is in the bill that was not consulted on, and how did you subsequently consult and get feedback on that?

Ginny Gardner

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing alludes to the fact that we did not specifically mention a forestry strategy in the consultation; what we mentioned was a long-term commitment to forestry. In the course of our discussions with stakeholders, we heard concern that short-term political timeframes would affect the long-term commitment to forestry, so we sought to allay those concerns by including a statutory duty to prepare a forestry strategy. That is in line with feedback that we received in the responses.

Rhoda Grant

What was the most controversial issue in the consultation? What received the most feedback? I suppose that some issues might have received a lot of supportive feedback, but what appeared to be most controversial?

Ginny Gardner

We had a yes or no question on the proposals for organisational structures; although a majority of organisation respondents supported the proposals, a majority of individual respondents did not.

The main issue that people fed back was concern about loss of expertise and skills, but the Scottish ministers believe that our proposals for organisational structures deal with that issue. We have made a commitment that all members of staff from Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland will transfer to the Scottish Government, and the Scottish ministers have made a commitment that the local office network will be retained. Therefore, the local engagement and knowledge that exist will be retained.

Another issue that people spoke about was making Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland a single body. The Scottish ministers already see them as separate bodies with separate functions. Keeping them separate is also a response to feedback from stakeholders about separating the regulator, which is the Forestry Commission Scotland, and the regulated, which is Forest Enterprise Scotland.

Rhoda Grant

I understand what you said about expertise and that, on day 1, the expertise will be exactly the same. However, as part of the Government, how will that expertise be continued in the future, and how will you continue to ensure that foresters are in a position of influence in the Scottish Government, given that civil servants move around?

Ginny Gardner

There are two elements to that. The first is that there are already a lot of specialists in the Scottish Government; it is quite normal to have groups of specialists with continuing professional development. There are procurement specialists, lawyers—such as Gemma MacAllister—accountants and so on. It is not unusual to have groups of specialists in the Scottish Government; that would not change for forestry.

Secondly, we recognise the importance of forestry skills and we have a commitment to retain them in the Scottish Government.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

I want to look at part 2 of the bill and the question of forestry functions and strategy. Functions are moving from the forestry commissioners to the Scottish ministers. Will those functions be the same or different?

Carole Barker-Munro (Scottish Government)

The functions will be different in that they are being modernised. At the moment, forestry commissioners have functions that have been layered up over time since the Forestry Act 1967. In bringing the functions to the Scottish ministers, the opportunity has been taken to put a main general duty on the Scottish ministers for sustainable forest management that recognises the inherent balance in forestry. It also links to the sustainable development of economic, social and environmental objectives. That is a different type of duty, but it is still a principal duty on the Scottish ministers to promote forestry and to take account of the various outcomes that forestry can contribute to.

The second duty—the duty to prepare a forestry strategy—is new. There is a forestry strategy at the moment, which Forestry Commission Scotland prepared, but there is no statutory requirement to do that. That will be a new duty on the Scottish ministers.

Those are the two main duties that are placed on the Scottish ministers in part 2 of the bill.

John Mason

Let us leave the strategy for now; I will come back to it. Will we see much difference in practice? You talked about modernising. Is it more a question of using modern and up-to-date language?

Carole Barker-Munro

I see it as being more about using modern and up-to-date language. Sustainable forestry management is a very well recognised and internationally known concept that is supported by the industry and the environmental sector, and it happens at the moment. It is underpinned by “The UK Forestry Standard”, using which people demonstrate that they are doing that. There is new language.

John Mason

So you do not foresee big practical differences, and we will not expect to see them.

Carole Barker-Munro

The policy is not to make big practical differences; the difference is that the bill acknowledges the multiple roles of forestry, rather than there being a series of little bespoke duties that have been layered up over time and are sometimes quite difficult to negotiate and navigate. There is a broader duty that recognises the multiple benefits at the outset.

John Mason

Okay. Thanks.

You mentioned the forestry strategy. I understand that there is a strategy at present, but it is not required by statute and that, with the bill, a strategy will be required by statute.

Carole Barker-Munro

That is correct.

John Mason

If we already have a strategy, why do we need to put it in statute?

Carole Barker-Munro

The policy of having a forestry strategy in statute will require ministers to have a strategy and to recognise the importance of forestry. That connects back to the question from your colleague Rhoda Grant about how to retain skills and staff in the Scottish Government. If there is a statutory requirement for a strategy, there must be policies and there must be outcomes that we are looking to gain from forestry, so staff in the Government will be needed to deliver those. It is about putting forestry front and centre among ministers’ objectives and recognising the importance to the sector of a strategy.

The Convener

When I was looking at the bill, I noticed that the strategy will have to balance economic development and environmental enhancement. How do you see that balance being achieved? Sometimes there will have to be compromises.

Carole Barker-Munro

There is already a balancing objective that Forestry Commission Scotland has to meet in balancing three pillars. That already happens in the strategy.

May I bring in Jo O’Hara?

The Convener

The bill does not say that there will be three pillars; it just says that economic development and environmental enhancement have to be balanced. Perhaps Jo O’Hara can explain that.

Jo O’Hara (Forestry Commission Scotland)

Sure. The principle of sustainable forestry management is about bringing together social, environmental and economic objectives. That is well understood among the forestry profession here and globally. As Carole Barker-Munro said, we have worked on that using “The UK Forestry Standard” and the existing forestry strategy. That is why it is in the bill.

I endorse what Carole Barker-Munro said about the current duty. The Forestry Act 1967 was about productive forestry. Over the years, other balancing duties have been brought in. Basically, the bill catches up with modern forestry practices. It balances all the different objectives that forestry can deliver at site, regional and national levels, and is part of the modernisation agenda. The language in legislation is catching up with modern forestry.

Simon Hodge (Forest Enterprise Scotland)

I want to pick up on the point about how things work in practice. Consultation—on the Scottish forestry strategy, the strategic directions for the national forest estate, and individual parts of the estate or individual afforestation or forestry proposals—is a large part of the approach. Through that consultation process, the nitty-gritty of what the appropriate balance looks like in each case is worked through.

Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)

I hear what is being said about the bill being about modernisation of forestry management.

Does anyone on the panel have fundamental concerns about the fact that many functions are moving from the Forestry Commission Scotland, which is, in effect, a fairly independent public body with a civil service role, to being under the responsibility of the Scottish ministers, who are, by default, political appointees? Is there any concern that the move is not just about modernisation, and that it may have a detrimental effect on the independence that the Forestry Commission Scotland currently has?

The Convener

It looks as if Ginny Gardner is in the firing line for that one. [Laughter.]

Ginny Gardner

Well spotted, convener.

I am not sure that the Scottish ministers would recognise the situation that you describe regarding the current independence of the Forestry Commission. Commission staff are civil servants, as you say, and they work very closely with the Scottish Government. Jo O’Hara and Simon Hodge are, on a daily basis, part of the senior management team of the directorate in which we all work. In practical terms, the Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland already operate as if they are part of the Scottish Government.

John Mason

The bill requires that there will be a strategy. We have an existing strategy, so can we just slot it in, or would changes have to be made? Would it fit or not?

Carole Barker-Munro

There would be no legal impediment to adopting the existing strategy. However, it is now quite old, and the current land use strategy contains a commitment to review the forestry strategy.

John Mason

Thank you for that.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

I will be fairly brief. The policy memorandum states:

“responsibility for all plant health in Scotland will now reside in one place.”

However, it is not clear whether the bill encompasses the duties in the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964 that relate to sale of plants and seeds in particular. Can you clarify that?

Catherine Murdoch (Scottish Government)

I will cover that. The 1964 seeds act—to give it its shortest name—is currently not used for dealing with forest or silvicultural reproductive materials to any great extent. We are transferring those functions to ministers, but we do not expect a change on the ground, if that is the point of your question.

All the functions in the Plant Health Act 1967 and in the 1964 seeds act that are currently carved out for the commissioners will transfer back to ministers. We do not see any immediate change happening in how they are used.

Stewart Stevenson

I suppose that I am making the rather simple point that those functions touch on the health of our plants. Forestry is one thing, but plants and seeds can provide vectors for diseases, fungi and all sorts of adverse health events. I want some assurance that everything is going to work together in a way that serves the needs of all the different parts of the system.

Catherine Murdoch

I see. Currently, most of the action to protect plants across the UK is undertaken through the Plant Health Act 1967, which governs, for example, importation of seeds. The 1964 seeds act is more about bringing things to market. Protection from the threat of plant diseases is dealt with under the Plant Health Act 1967. Those functions will all be with the Scottish ministers. Everything will be in one place.

Stewart Stevenson

Everything will be in one big pot.

Catherine Murdoch

Yes.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

I have questions on management to further sustainable development. The bill states:

“The Scottish Ministers must manage forestry land in a way that promotes sustainable forest management”,

and it sets out the meaning of “forestry land”. I would like further clarity on two points. First, section 10(b) refers to

“other land that the Scottish Ministers manage for the purpose of exercising their functions under section 9.”

Can someone clarify that, please?

Carole Barker-Munro

I am happy to do that. The

“other land that the Scottish Ministers manage for the purpose of exercising their functions”

could be any land that is not in the national forest estate. The Scottish ministers own the national forest estate, and it is managed by Simon Hodge and his team. The Scottish ministers also own other land that could be used for a variety of purposes, and the provision enables that land, for the purposes of its management, to be brought within the remit of the bill so that sustainable forest management might apply should they wish to plant trees on that land.

The other category of land that the provision would refer to is land that belongs to someone else and that the Scottish ministers manage under an arrangement under section 14 of the bill. In that case, they manage the land on a contractual basis on behalf of another person.

John Finnie

Right. My second question was going to be about section 14. How does that differ from the present arrangement? Is it consistent with the present arrangement?

Carole Barker-Munro

In terms of forestry land, it is consistent with the present arrangement. Forest Enterprise Scotland already manages land on behalf of other people, and I am sure that Simon Hodge will be happy to tell you more about that. Section 14 provides the legislative underpinning for that to happen. The provision enables a land management service, but also a land advice service, and those are two functions that Forest Enterprise Scotland already undertakes.

Simon Hodge

I will add to that briefly. The current forestry legislation basically pins the entire management of the national forest estate to forestry and forestry purposes. As the years have gone on, there has been a desire for us to be involved in delivery across a wider set of objectives, particularly as one third of the estate—some 200,000 hectares—is not forestry land but other land.

As we have been using our skill sets to develop agendas and link with, for example, communities, wider habitat management, and agriculture and new entrants, we have had to peg all of those in some way to forestry. The bill provides an opportunity to recognise the value that that other land can deliver for purposes other than forestry.

John Finnie

Thank you.

The Convener

John, I do not want to cut across your bows. I would not mind asking a question on that subject, but if you have more to ask on it, please lead on.

John Finnie

No, I was going to move on to another subject.

The Convener

Okay. I cannot quite see how all of this will pan out. It seems that land that the Government owns that is not part of the national forest estate will now become part of that estate. Will you clarify that for me? If the Government owns a chunk of land up in the Cairngorms, will the management of that land fall under the act? Will Creag Meagaidh fall under it? Will it stay with Scottish Natural Heritage or will it become part of the forest estate?

Carole Barker-Munro

Under the bill, the only way to add to the national forest estate is to purchase land for the purposes of forestry, in which case it will automatically be added to the national forest estate. The bill does not automatically add any other land that the Scottish ministers own to the national forest estate, so it will retain that status.

The Convener

So land that is owned at the moment does not fall naturally into the national forest estate. Only land that is purchased or acquired for forestry falls within the management of that.

Carole Barker-Munro

Yes—after the bill is enacted. The way to add to the national forest estate will be to purchase land for that, and it will then become part of the national forest estate. The bill does not automatically bring the rest of the Scottish ministers’ landholdings or indeed any other public sector landholdings within what is defined as the national forest estate.

The Convener

Thank you. Sorry—I was a wee bit confused.

Sorry to cut across your bows, John.

John Finnie

Not at all.

The Convener

I think that Peter Chapman has a supplementary question.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

I would like to clarify Simon Hodge’s statement that a third of the land—200,000 hectares—is not under forestry at present. That seems an awful lot of land that you have control over that is not planted. Is a lot of it awaiting replanting, having been felled? Does that come into the 200,000 hectares?

Simon Hodge

No. Land that is felled and awaiting replanting is still considered to be forestry land. The land that is not forestry land is principally mountainous hill land, extensive peat bogs or the approximately 30,000 hectares of land in active agricultural use, as well as other types of land such as riparian land and some coastal land.

Peter Chapman

Okay. Thank you.

The Convener

Sorry, John—back to you.

John Finnie

Thanks. We have touched on section 9 and the management of forestry land. There seem to be some similarities between sections 9 and 13. What is the difference between the land that applies in those sections, and its terms of management? Also, when would the power be called upon?

Carole Barker-Munro

Section 9 is principally about forestry land or land that is principally designated for forestry, including the national forest estate. The purpose of section 13 is to fulfil the policy that, through the new executive agency forestry and land Scotland, the Scottish ministers should be able to have a broader land management role, moving away from a silo approach of purely managing forestry.

Under section 9, forestry land should be managed for the purposes of sustainable forest management or instead it can be used for sustainable development,

“having regard to the forestry strategy.”

That will enable an opening up of the purposes that such land can be used for.

Land under section 13 is not forestry land; it is other land. The purpose for which it should be managed is sustainable development. Sustainable forest management and sustainable development are twin beasts—SFM is about forestry land and sustainable development applies to other land.

John Finnie

Thank you. I am conscious that section 13(2)(a) refers to the compulsory purchase of land outlined in section 16, but I think that colleagues are going to ask questions about that so I will leave it there.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

This is the one part of the bill that I am struggling with. It would seem that section 16 gives power to the Scottish ministers for the first time to compulsorily purchase land to achieve sustainable development, but there is no definition of sustainable development in the bill. Section 16(1) states:

“The Scottish Ministers may compulsorily acquire land that they require for the purpose of exercising their functions under”

sections 9 and 13. Section 9(1) states:

“The Scottish Ministers must manage forestry land in a way that promotes sustainable forest management.”

It seems to me that that gives incredible power to the Scottish ministers to compulsorily purchase land and add it to the forest estate. Is that correct?

Carole Barker-Munro

There are a number of points to address, so I apologise if I take a little bit of time over this, but it is important.

The first point is that powers of compulsory purchase are not new for forestry; they are in the 1967 act. Those powers have been taken over and broadly replicated in the bill.

The Convener

Before you move on from that point, it would be helpful if you defined what the compulsory purchase powers are under the 1967 act. They are purely for forestry, are they not? They do not include sustainable development.

Carole Barker-Munro

The powers are purely for forestry and purposes connected to forestry.

The Convener

Which does not include sustainable development.

Carole Barker-Munro

Which does not include sustainable development.

The Convener

Thank you—I just wanted to clarify that.

Carole Barker-Munro

Those powers have been lifted from the 1967 act and included in the bill. As we have mentioned, one of the purposes of the bill is for the Scottish ministers to have a broader land management role. There is a symmetry in the bill in that all the powers that are available for forestry are available for the broader land management purpose. That is why the power to acquire land and the power to acquire it through a compulsory purchase order have been included.

Mike Rumbles is correct that this would be the first statute under which the Scottish ministers, purely for the purpose of sustainable development, would have CPO powers. The Scottish ministers and a number of public bodies have powers in the rural area that could relate to sustainable development, but that particular term would be new to the legislation.

Checks and balances are provided in the bill. The underpinning legislation by which land would be acquired through compulsion is the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947, which sets out the standard procedure for the exercise of those powers, and that provides the checks and balances. There is also a Scottish Government policy document that sets out the purposes of compulsory purchase. It is for those reasons that that power is in the bill.

Mike Rumbles

Therefore, the bill does not just transfer current compulsory purchase powers under the law as it stands; it increases ministers’ compulsory purchase powers.

Carole Barker-Munro

Yes, that is correct.

Mike Rumbles

I am just a little bit exercised about the fact that the Scottish ministers may compulsorily acquire land that they require—it will be up to the ministers to decide what they want to do with this.

Carole Barker-Munro

It would be up to ministers, following the procedures set out for all compulsory purchase powers.

Mike Rumbles

It seems to me that we would be giving an incredibly wide power to the Scottish ministers. Is that not right?

Carole Barker-Munro

I agree that it is a widening of the current compulsory purchase power.

The Convener

It might help if Carole Barker-Munro gave an example of what she thinks this might encompass.

Carole Barker-Munro

I can give an example with regard to forestry—

The Convener

I think that we understand how it will apply to forestry; the issue here is sustainable development.

Carole Barker-Munro

The powers would be exercised in accordance with the Government’s policy of the day for the outcomes that it wanted the new agency to achieve. The current policy is that the new agency’s focus is to be on forestry, so I am afraid that I am unable to give the committee a specific example of when a Government of the future would use the power in relation to sustainable development. As I have said, it is there because of the desire for symmetry across the piece.

Mike Rumbles

I am a little confused as to why you cannot give us any examples. After all, this is an important piece of legislation. We are talking about taking land away from people who own it—and doing so for a particular purpose—but you do not seem to be able to give an example of when the power would be used. We are being asked as a committee of the Parliament to give ministers this new power, but I can see no specific examples of the different situations in which it might be used instead of the power that ministers have now. I have no problem with the powers that ministers have at the moment, but I am utterly confused about the need for the new power.

The Convener

We have pushed Carole Barker-Munro quite hard on this point, and I am happy to bring in Simon Hodge for a comment, but perhaps it is an issue that we should take up with the minister.

Simon Hodge

I have been searching my mind for an example to give you. As Carole Barker-Munro has suggested, looking back the way, we have not seen these kinds of situations to any degree. However, I remember a case a couple of years ago involving a designated peat bog that had a historical permission for peat extraction. Given its designation as a special area of conservation, we worked closely with the Scottish ministers on finding a solution to avoid the bog’s destruction as a result of peat extraction. In the end, we went through a process of buying the site out and bringing it under management to restore it to favourable condition. Compulsory purchase was not discussed in that case, and the situation did not pertain directly to the 1967 act, but to my mind it is an example of the sort of situation where one could imagine the power being considered as an option.

The Convener

Carole Barker-Munro was right to say that this is an important point, because members are now queuing up to ask questions. John Finnie is next.

John Finnie

“Sustainable” is a much used and, I would suggest, much abused word—although I would say that, wouldn’t I? Was it a conscious decision not to define the term in the bill?

Carole Barker-Munro

It was a conscious decision. “Sustainable development” is a well-used term, and it is used in legislation without being defined. Gemma MacAllister might be able to give some examples of recent bills in which it has not been defined.

Gemma MacAllister (Scottish Government)

I am happy to do so. The term “sustainable development” is not defined in the bill, but there is established case law that says that its meaning is clear to the legislature, judges and ministers. The Scottish Government’s view, then, was that it did not have to be defined.

John Finnie

But the terms “forestry land” and “national forest estate” are defined.

Gemma MacAllister

The default interpretative rule, if you like, is that where a word is not defined in a piece of legislation—and not all words are defined in legislation—it takes its ordinary meaning. In other words, a judge would look simply at the plain, ordinary meaning of the words.

John Finnie

Would it be possible, then, to share with the committee in writing the definition of “sustainable development”?

Carole Barker-Munro

We are happy to come back to the committee with the judgment that Gemma MacAllister referred to, but I point out that the purpose of defining “forestry land” in the bill is to give transparency for the public and MSPs with regard to the land that should be subject to sustainable forest management. There is a transparency element, because members of the public should be able to identify what constitutes forestry land and therefore the places where ministers should be practising sustainable forest management.

The Convener

I am looking again at you, John, because I am as intrigued as you are by this line of questioning.

John Finnie

The national forest estate might be a well defined area, and I understand what you say in relation to rulings. However, although you might feel that it might not apply with regard to the bill, if you were able to give a definition of “sustainable economic growth”, that would be extremely helpful. If there was a precedent for that, it would be good to know.

Carole Barker-Munro

It would probably be quite helpful if we wrote to you to set out a number of definitions.

John Finnie

That would be appreciated.

The Convener

That would be helpful. Looking around the table, I can see a few raised eyebrows with regard to what things mean.

Peter Chapman

I need to declare an interest in that I am a farmer and own farmland in Aberdeenshire. My concern is that the bill is incredibly broad. What is to stop the minister on a whim deciding that he would like a chunk of my land in the north-east so that he can plant on it? If he came forward and said, “I quite fancy a bit of that; it would make a nice forest,” how would I argue against that if I did not want to sell? The bill is incredibly wide and, I think, incredibly dangerous.

The Convener

I also own a bit of land, so I am nervous about ministers, too. I should declare that I have an interest in a farming partnership. I suspect that Stewart Stevenson is going to say that he has a wee interest, too.

Stewart Stevenson

Indeed, I have 3 acres adjacent to forest land, which is, therefore, land that someone might naturally think to extend a forest into.

The Convener

Now that we have got that out of the way, I invite Carole Barker-Munro to come back in.

Carole Barker-Munro

My colleagues who deal with policy on compulsory purchase would take issue with the idea that it would be done on a whim, as there are procedures for these things. Checks and balances are set out in Scottish Government policy. We are happy to provide further information if we can. Compulsory purchase is not an area that we lead on, but the bill reflects Scottish Government policy, which is to have the powers available for situations in which agreement cannot be reached.

Gemma MacAllister

The power would always be exercised in accordance with the published guidance. I hope that you have seen the circular that talks about exercising the power when it is in the public interest to do so. Nothing would cut across that.

Peter Chapman

I must say that I remain to be convinced. I look forward to your written submission on the point. I think that the bill is far too wide, far too broad and far too dangerous. We need to give the matter considerable thought.

Jamie Greene

Due process has been mentioned a few times. If the minister decides, from a policy point of view, to purchase a piece of land, what is the process that the minister has to go through? Who does the minister have to satisfy in order to allow that to happen?

Gemma MacAllister

Compulsory purchase is an issue that is being dealt with by my legal colleague, who is not here today. However, the procedure was established in the 1947 act that Carole Barker-Munro referred to. It sets out a procedure that has been followed on many occasions and which includes checks and balances such as publication requirements and opportunities for being heard via a hearing or a public local inquiry, and it hooks into legislation that gives provision for compensation. Further, as I said, the power would only ever be exercised in the public interest—that is what is in ministers’ published guidance.

Jamie Greene

The land need not be purchased for the purposes of forestry; it could be purchased for sustainable development, although that is an undefined term. Is that correct?

Gemma MacAllister

“Sustainable development” is not defined, but it is not unusual not to define terms in legislation. The term will take its ordinary meaning. There are many terms in many pieces of legislation that are not defined. In those cases, when it comes to those terms being interpreted, the ordinary meaning of the words or the term are considered. As I said, there is established case law, with a judge saying that “sustainable development” is a clearly understood term. I believe that various accompanying documents such as the policy memorandum and the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing have referred to internationally accepted definitions of the term.

Jamie Greene

What judicial recourse or statutory options are available to members of the public if they disagree with the intentions of the minister with regard to compulsory purchase?

Gemma MacAllister

That is where the objection procedure comes in. It is all about someone having an opportunity to be heard and have their concerns put forward.

Because of the nature of the powers, the legislation is interpreted strictly by the courts. That is part of the checks and balances that Carole Barker-Munro spoke about.

The Convener

Just to clarify, and to use an example that I have seen, if someone owns a small patch of land and the Forestry Commission wants access to its woods on the far side, in the past, it would do that by negotiation, but in future it could compulsorily purchase a track through the farm and argue that that is in the public interest. I think that the bill will allow the Forestry Commission to do that, or am I wrong?

Carole Barker-Munro

The Forestry Act 1967 allows the Forestry Commission to do that at the moment, if the purpose is forestry.

The Convener

If there is another route, the Forestry Commission cannot do it, but under the bill, it could, under the sustainable development provision. Perhaps you could ponder that.

Carole Barker-Munro

I would like to ponder that one.

Mike Rumbles

We have heard a number of comments about there being checks and balances, although I am still not clear what they are. From what has been said, it seems that the minister will decide what is in the public interest. Is that correct?

We have heard that the power will be used only after negotiation, but if Parliament gives the minister the power of enhanced compulsory purchase, that will strengthen his or her hand in any negotiation with landowners about what he or she wants to purchase. I am not clear what the checks and balances are under the enhanced power that we are giving the minister.

Carole Barker-Munro

The best way for us to answer that is for us—with your permission, convener—to write to the committee with a detailed explanation of the way in which compulsory purchase works overall, because that is the procedure that we are tapping into. It would be helpful to set out how the process works for a number of powers and bodies.

The Convener

A letter on that would be helpful.

Rhoda Grant

I have a quick question on that issue. My reading of the bill suggests that the power can be used for forestry purposes, but the example given was the preservation of peatland. I am not clear whether the bill refers to non-forestry land.

Carole Barker-Munro

The power of compulsory purchase refers to forestry and non-forestry land. The forestry land provision is not new; the provision on non-forestry land for the purposes of sustainable development is new.

Rhoda Grant

Can you direct me to where that is in the bill, because that is not my reading?

Carole Barker-Munro

Section 16(1) says:

“The Scottish Ministers may compulsorily acquire land that they require for the purpose of exercising their functions under ... section 9”,

which relates to forestry, and “section 13”, which is for the purpose of sustainable development.

The Convener

Before we move on to John Finnie, I have a question on disposal of land. Currently, the Government policy, with the agreement of the Parliament, is that it can dispose of land to rationalise, but the proceeds must be reinvested in the forest estate. There is a concern that section 17 of the bill gives the Government the ability to dispose of land but does not require it to reinvest the proceeds in the forest estate.

Carole Barker-Munro

Section 17 gives the Scottish ministers the powers to dispose of land. Those are not much different from the current legislative powers that ministers have to dispose of land. However, at the moment, a policy is in place around the proceeds being reinvested.

Simon Hodge wants to come in on that.

Simon Hodge

Just to clarify, we have two streams for disposal on the estate. One is called rationalisation, which is the disposal of small pockets of land and buildings that are no longer required. We use that income to fund the majority of our capital activity, such as the purchase of vehicles and fleet and capital works on management buildings and the like. The other, which hitherto was called rationalisation but is now the new woodland investment programme, involves a larger-scale sale of land for reinvestment, principally into woodland creation, although in the past few years it has also been used to invest in, for example, integrated land management with active farming for new entrants.

Therefore we have the larger-scale sale for reinvestment in woodland creation and the smaller-scale rationalisation to fund Forest Enterprise Scotland’s capital requirements.

The Convener

I can see that Carole Barker-Munro wants to come back in, but I am worried about the amount of time that we have to deal with the number of themes that we have left. She can come in briefly.

Carole Barker-Munro

I just want to draw the committee’s attention to the fact that any disposals of the national forest estate have to be undertaken in accordance with the forestry strategy.

The Convener

Okay.

John Finnie

I have some questions about community bodies. Section 18 of the bill allows the delegation of management of forestry and other land to community bodies, and sections 19 and 20 deal with other aspects of that. Will you outline how the powers in sections 18, 19 and 20 differ from similar powers in the Forestry Act 1967?

Carole Barker-Munro

The power in section 18 is a straight lift from the 1967 act, with the exception that it is for not just forestry land but any land. Again, that is a broadening and a contribution to the community empowerment agenda. The definition in section 19 is the definition in the 1967 act that was amended by Parliament two years ago via the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, so it is a straight lift but with a slight broadening to take account of the wider role.

John Finnie

Okay. I will ask some other questions quickly, if I may, convener. Ms Barker-Munro, how did you arrive at the meaning of a “community body” as set out in the bill? How does it compare to the meaning in the 2015 act?

Carole Barker-Munro

We arrived at that meaning because it is currently law. It is in the 1967 act, as amended via the 2015 act, so it was the Parliament that arrived at that definition for forestry purposes, and we have purely replicated it. There are a number of different definitions of a community body in statute, depending on the purpose. The 2015 act has different definitions of a “community body”, depending on the purpose for which the provisions are used.

John Finnie

The policy memorandum states that the bill is

“contributing to the community empowerment policy agenda.”

How will that be achieved, please?

Carole Barker-Munro

The bill will enable communities to get involved in managing parts of the national forest estate. As I said, that is based on existing law and we have merely lifted it and put it into the bill, because we saw no reason not to.

John Finnie

It was a question and not an accusation. [Laughter.] I am sorry if it was presented as the latter.

Carole Barker-Munro

I will pass it over to Simon.

Simon Hodge

On our current practice, we have just launched a new community asset transfer scheme that, in effect, broadens an existing mechanism to allow communities to bid to acquire parts of the national forest estate. Crucially, that increases the breadth from communities of geography—local residential communities—to communities of interest, which is consistent with the 2015 act. I see those provisions in the bill as enabling us to continue to operate on that basis rather than as significantly broadening the powers. We have already brought our practices in line with the 2015 act, and the provisions will ensure that the bill is aligned with those existing powers.

John Finnie

Thank you, that is very positive. I am afraid that I am going to have to use the term “compulsory purchase” again. Perhaps you can respond to this question in writing if you cannot answer it just now. It relates to land that is bought through compulsory purchase to further the achievement of sustainable development. Will the bill allow ministers to delegate the management of that land to a community body?

Carole Barker-Munro

I will respond to that in writing, but I believe that the legislation will allow that. However, I will need to check whether certain rules are in place about what can be done with land after it is purchased through a CPO.

John Finnie

Okay. Many thanks indeed.

The Convener

It would also be helpful to know with regard to land no longer required for sustainable development whether the Government will have an obligation to sell it back to the person from whom it was compulsorily purchased, which I believe is the law at the moment. It would help if you could clarify that.

Members have a lot of questions on felling. Richard Lyle will lead on it.

Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

Basically, I am going to put it all together, if I can. The policy memorandum states:

“While the Forestry Act 1967 focused on timber production, the new regime allows for a broader view to be taken.”

However, the consultation document included few details on a new felling regime allowing a broader view. Why does the Scottish Government feel that a broader view of felling is needed? In what way are the provisions in the bill broader than the scope of the current felling regime? How much detail on the changes to the felling regime was included in the consultation document? What were respondents’ views on the proposals about felling?

Catherine Murdoch

I will try to keep my answer short, as per the convener’s instructions. We have broadened the regime in the sense that we are tying all decisions on felling permission back to sustainable forest management. The old regime focuses strongly on allowing felling for timber production. We are tying decisions back to sustainable forest management. In taking decisions, a view will have to be taken on the balance of the three aspects that we discussed earlier.

In the consultation, we said that some of the detail in the Forestry Act 1967 would drop down into secondary legislation, and that is what we are doing. The detail of how the regime will be broadened, in terms of the process and what applicants can expect, will fall to secondary legislation. That will allow us to work with the sector to ensure that when we talk about referring back to SFM, it understands what that means, and that the processes that we put in place will function correctly.

Richard Lyle

I turn to regulations on felling. The part of the bill on felling lacks detail, as much of the detail will be provided in regulations. The bill provides for regulations on a number of matters, including applications for felling permission, decisions on applications to fell a tree, compensation for refusal of felling permission, felling directions, restocking directions and appeals against decisions by ministers.

Why is so much of the detail on the felling regime to be included in regulations rather than in the bill? What will the timetable and the process be for developing and consulting on those regulations?

Catherine Murdoch

The thinking behind having all of that detail in secondary legislation is that the provisions in this area are very detailed. For example, the Forestry Act 1967 provides for exceptions to the situations in which it is necessary to apply for a felling licence; it goes into detail on, for example, the diameter of trees, which is amended by secondary legislation when it needs to be. We have taken the view that it would be fairer to the sector, in the first instance, to work with it to create all the regulations. It would have been difficult for us to do that prior to the bill being published, because the framework is quite different. We will now work with the sector to put all of the detail together and we intend to have it ready for commencement. Our current working date is spring 2019.

Richard Lyle

My last question is about refusal of felling permission. Section 29 relates to compensation for refusal of felling permission. Under what circumstances might the Scottish ministers refuse an application for felling permission? What is the current process for compensation in such circumstances?

Catherine Murdoch

The detail of the situations in which felling permission might be refused is among the detail that we have yet to work out. At one end of the spectrum are situations in which it would be detrimental to the environment to fell or it might be desirable not to fell from a timber supply point of view. However, I am led to believe that it is quite rare for felling permission to be refused—I am looking at Jo O’Hara, because she is the current regulator. It is much more likely that felling permission will continue to be given but that conditions will be attached that require restocking.

It is less a case of stopping felling happening and more one of maintaining woodland cover after felling takes place. The way in which felling is regulated and will continue to be regulated is that conditions can be attached to permission to fell, and the regulator can require restocking when felling has taken place illegally. Those are the basic principles now and that will continue.

Richard Lyle

That is fine—thank you.

The Convener

Would you like to come in on that, Jo?

Jo O’Hara

If it would be helpful.

The Convener

I was a bit confused by the fact that it seems that someone can be refused permission to fell but can then be ordered to fell in the interest of sustainable development. Someone might be refused permission to fell for a nature conservation reason, but the majority of the trees might blow over and they might be ordered to fell them and then to restock the land. I do not quite understand how all that will work.

Catherine Murdoch

The confusion is perhaps because it looks linear in the bill—that is just how it is set out—but it is not linear in practice. The reason for having the ability to direct felling is more about avoiding harm caused by trees, although it is rare for such a situation to arise. That ability exists, but I am not sure how often it is used. A stand of trees that is grown for timber that someone wants to fell is a separate situation and a regulation is in place that allows us to require restocking. Situations in which we, as the regulator, would direct felling are quite different—those would be where trees are causing harm.

The Convener

I noticed that Jo O’Hara is nodding in agreement that that situation does not happen often.

Mike, do you want to come in before I move on?

Mike Rumbles

Yes, please. The bill is obviously directed at commercial tree felling and that sort of thing, but it has just struck me that section 23 says:

“A person commits an offence if the person fells a tree”.

It then sets out a list of exemptions. I want to ask what is, in a way, a silly question. In rural Aberdeenshire, a lot of people have large 1-acre gardens with trees in them. Are we bringing such people into the bill? I am pleased to see Catherine Murdoch shake her head. However, as a layperson reading the bill, I see that it says that

“A person commits an offence if the person fells a tree”.

Catherine Murdoch

Yes, it does look like that. In reality, the current offence is felling a growing tree. We continue with that offence; it is simply a question of construction. An offence needs to be clear, so that people understand when they are committing an offence. On top of that, we will have exemptions. Currently, those exemptions could set a minimum area, for example. Therefore, we would take the single tree out of the equation by creating an exemption for it.

Mike Rumbles

Right. There are exemptions in the bill and the current law.

Catherine Murdoch

They will be set out in secondary legislation.

Mike Rumbles

The offence will not apply to residences.

Catherine Murdoch

This is a forestry bill. We are not looking at single trees, but we will put all the exemptions in secondary legislation. That is how it will be constructed.

Mike Rumbles

I just wanted that point to be clarified. Thank you.

The Convener

Jo O’Hara is going to come in and tell us that it is still all right to cut down the odd tree for firewood, no doubt.

Jo O’Hara

If you look at the current legislation—I would not blame you if you did not want to do that, because there are all sorts of complexity in there—you will see that it lays out all the exemptions, including whether it is a fruit tree, a tree in a garden or a tree in a park. To be honest, the exemptions need to be brought up to date, and that will be done in the secondary legislation that we are talking about.

The Convener

Peter Chapman has the next question.

Peter Chapman

My question is about notices to comply and compliance. Chapter 6 of the bill is about registering notices to comply with continuing conditions, felling directions and restocking directions. How do the bill’s provisions on registration of notices to comply differ from the current system?

Catherine Murdoch

Broadly speaking, the current system allows the regulator to enforce a failure to comply with a felling licence or a felling direction on subsequent owners. We are putting in place a link to the existing system that will allow new owners to know exactly what they are purchasing, including any burdens that sit with that land. At the moment, it is less transparent than that. If you were to purchase land, you would be dependent on the seller telling you that they had a felling licence and that conditions would still run with that land. We are putting in place the opportunity for the regulator to take a view about whether those conditions should be put on the register, so that they would all appear in the usual searches that solicitors run when a person is purchasing a piece of land.

Peter Chapman

This is about purchasing an existing forest that is already growing trees—

Catherine Murdoch

You could be purchasing the land at the point when everything has been felled and restocking conditions still apply. It is about having transparency at that point. If you were to buy a mature forest, you would understand what you were buying much more easily than you would if you were buying a piece of forestry land that has been felled but has not yet been restocked.

Peter Chapman

I am happy with that.

Jamie Greene

A consequence of the bill will be the repeal of the Forestry Act 1967 in Scotland. The main thing that struck me from that is the fact that the current act states that all activities on national forest estate land must be tree related. The bill removes that restriction. Is anyone on the panel aware of any other substantial consequences or implications of the repeal of the 1967 act that the committee should be aware of?

Carole Barker-Munro

The view has been taken that some of the functions that were placed on the forestry commissioners by the 1967 act are obsolete or unnecessary. I would be happy to write to the committee with a list of those functions, but there are examples that relate to activities such as going on to a neighbour’s land, shooting their rabbits and selling them back to him for the privilege. We felt that that was perhaps not a modern policy directive.

A slightly more sensible function is the powers that forestry commissioners have to make byelaws for access. Because of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and the fact that access is now a local issue, and because the Scottish ministers do not have powers to make byelaws for access, those powers should not be kept for the Scottish ministers. There are some examples of the opportunity being taken to modernise, refresh and remove some of the obsolete functions. I am happy to provide a list of those if it would be helpful.

Jamie Greene

It would be helpful to get a list of things that are being dropped or lost as a result of the repeal of the 1967 act, and additional or new things in the bill so that there is a clear comparison.

Carole Barker-Munro

We would be happy to provide that.

Jamie Greene

Further to that, why do some aspects of the bill that widen the scope of the Scottish ministers’ powers fall into this bill when they should perhaps have been included in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016? Why are they being included in the bill if they do not relate specifically to forestry?

Carole Barker-Munro

The main element of the bill that is not related to forestry is the one that we have already touched on, which is the broader land management role. That is there to fulfil a manifesto commitment and policy to give the Scottish ministers a wider land management role and to establish forestry and land Scotland as a land agency for Scotland. The bill facilitates delivery of that manifesto commitment.

Jamie Greene

So the new forestry division will sit within the new executive agency.

Carole Barker-Munro

No. The new forestry division will sit within the Scottish Government. It will be a division of the environment and forestry directorate. Forestry and land Scotland will be the new executive agency and it will report to the Scottish ministers.

Jamie Greene

I think perhaps we need to see an organogram structure of how the agencies, divisions, directorates and ministers all fit together. That would also be quite helpful.

Carole Barker-Munro

I am happy to provide that.

John Mason

One of the most interesting aspects of any bill is its financial side. We have heard about the forestry governance project board, which was set up to look at the finances of the devolution of forestry. Can you tell us about that? Does it produce a report? Where are we going with that?

Ginny Gardner

The forestry governance project board was set up after the announcement by ministers in 2015 that they had agreed with the UK Government to complete the devolution of forestry. The board is chaired jointly by directors in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Scottish Government. It also has members from the Forestry Commission. Jo O’Hara and Simon Hodge are on it, along with forestry representatives from England and Wales.

The board’s remit is specifically about the cross-border arrangements. Because we need to agree across the three Governments, the board is not about finance in Scotland. It looks at the cross-border functions that are delivered by forestry commissioners across Britain and at the processes that will be put in place across the three countries for those arrangements in the future. The particular finance issue that arises is that, at the moment, the cross-border functions are funded by DEFRA on behalf of all Administrations and we are looking at how that funding will be shared going forward. It is a specific cross-border issue.

John Mason

Forest Research Scotland contributes £2.48 million to that. Will we be contributing more after devolution or less?

Ginny Gardner

The £2.48 million is specifically for research that only Scotland is asking Forest Research to do. Jo O’Hara might want to say a bit more about that. Forest Research gets its core budget from DEFRA—I think that it is about £8 million—and that covers research that is relevant to all Britain, not just to Scotland. We obviously want that research to continue.

John Mason

Would the risk be that, because we have got more than our 8.3 per cent population share of forestry, we might end up having to foot more of the bill that DEFRA used to fund?

Ginny Gardner

We are still negotiating the share but we anticipate that our share of the budget that is currently in DEFRA will come to the Scottish Government.

John Mason

Is there agreement about how it will be shared out?

Ginny Gardner

That is still up for agreement.

John Mason

I think that we would like to be kept updated on that.

Ginny Gardner

Yes.

John Mason

It is suggested that there will not be a huge cost and nothing for local authorities or other bodies. However, one of the big chunks will be information technology costs. Whenever IT is mentioned at this committee, people get quite wound up and worried. The figures vary from £2.05 million to £8.05 million, which seems to be quite a wide range. What is your comment on that?

Ginny Gardner

As set out in the financial memorandum, IT specialists in the Forestry Commission are working with our Scottish Government IT specialists on the exact nature of the integration of the current systems. They still have to fully work out aspects of that, which is why there is a greater range on some of the aspects under that item.

John Mason

I think that it would be fair to ask for updates on that as we go on.

Ginny Gardner

Of course.

The Convener

It might also be useful to know that that is the broadest range and that the cost will not go above it.

Ginny Gardner

That is the broadest range that the IT specialists have given.

The Convener

Those are all the questions that we have time for. The clerks will marshal the questions that I have not been able to bring in; we will submit those and remind you of the things that you have undertaken to respond to the committee on.

I thank you all for coming. In the coming weeks, we will be taking further evidence from various stakeholders, and I suspect that we might well be seeing some of you again when the cabinet secretary comes to update the committee. Thank you.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-08677, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on stage 1 of the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill.

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity (Fergus Ewing)

I am delighted to open the stage 1 debate on the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill. The framework that the bill will create is key to the Government’s wider ambition for forestry to play its role in creating a sustainable, productive and thriving rural economy. The sector as a whole is already worth nearly £1,000 million a year and supports 25,000 full-time-equivalent jobs. The bill’s measures will also support delivery of planting targets as part of our climate change ambitions and will help us to achieve wider social and environmental outcomes.

Forestry is already broadly devolved. Ministers set Scottish forestry strategy and policy and provide funding via the Scottish budget. The bill will complete the devolution of forestry. It will transfer the functions of the forestry commissioners—in so far as they relate to Scotland—to Scottish ministers and will establish a modern legislative framework for the regulation, support and development of forestry in Scotland.

The current legislation, the Forestry Act 1967, has served the sector well, but it was drafted for post-war circumstances and in turn is based on 1919 legislation. It is time for forestry legislation in Scotland to catch up with modern forestry practice. As well as seeking to deliver improved accountability, transparency and policy alignment, the bill places duties on ministers to promote sustainable forest management—accepted good practice on managing forestry—and to set out a long-term strategic vision for the sector via a new Scottish forestry strategy.

The bill also enables more effective use of Scotland’s publicly owned land. Ministers will be responsible for managing the national forest estate to contribute to multiple outcomes. Ministers will be able to reach voluntary agreements with others to manage land on their behalf.

I welcome the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s report, which recommends that the Parliament supports the general principles of the bill, and I want to thank members of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, and other parliamentary committees, for their careful and thorough scrutiny at stage 1. That was, of course, made possible by thoughtful contributions from the many stakeholders who have engaged with the bill process, some of whom I met immediately before coming down to the chamber, which may have made me somewhat late, Presiding Officer, for which I humbly apologise.

All of that has been evident in the broad consensus that has been achieved to date, and I hope that that continues through the bill process. That said, the committee made a number of helpful recommendations and observations in its report. I issued a response to that report on 3 November and I look forward to hearing and listening carefully to all the contributions in this debate ahead of stage 2.

The requirement for ministers to prepare and publish a forestry strategy has been widely welcomed. The committee made recommendations about how that strategy should align with wider duties and policies, consultation arrangements and review periods. I will consider all those recommendations carefully.

I acknowledge the views that the committee expressed on the compulsory purchase of land. I give my assurance that I am listening and will consider the issues fully.

On completing the devolution of forestry, I acknowledge that there remains concern about the new organisational structures for the sector. I assure members that we are taking a considered approach and will continue to engage with staff and stakeholders as the work progresses to establish the new forestry agency—forestry and land Scotland—and the dedicated forestry division. As recommended in the committee’s report, I will provide a comprehensive statement setting out how we will manage and administer forestry in the future.

Of course, some aspects of forestry by their nature require co-ordination and co-operation across boundaries and borders. They include the commissioning and delivery of forestry research and science; the protection of trees from pests and diseases; and agreement on codes and standards for the sustainable management of our forests. I am pleased to announce that I have agreed with my United Kingdom and Welsh counterparts new arrangements for sharing responsibility for those matters. One Government will co-ordinate delivery of each function on behalf of all three and, in future, the Scottish Government will take the lead on the UK forestry standard, the woodland carbon code and forestry economics.

Fulton MacGregor (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement and the role that the Scottish Government will play in leading on those key issues. Will the cabinet secretary advise members on the arrangements that are being made for the future of the forest research agency, which plays a key role throughout the UK in forestry science and expertise?

Fergus Ewing

Yes. That is a good question. I am aware that research on forestry is carried out in various parts of the United Kingdom, and that is a good thing. The forest research agency will remain intact as an agency of the forestry commissioners, which will ensure that expertise in forestry science, statistics and inventory is maintained. To enable that to happen, new governance, commissioning and funding arrangements will be agreed between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. I am grateful to my counterparts in the UK, who have agreed in principle that those arrangements should be established. They are sensible and to be welcomed.

The bill and its measures will help to underpin our shared national endeavour to expand Scotland’s woodland area to secure future timber supply. Growing more timber helps to contribute to our wider economic ambitions by growing jobs and securing and creating business opportunities in the sawmill and timber processing sectors. The timber development programme is also helping to support the development of innovative wood products and promote greater use of Scottish wood in everything from offices to housing.

To help to increase the pace and scale of planting, we have increased grant funding for woodland creation by £4 million and provided more attractive grant rates for native woodlands in Highland. Mindful of the impact of timber extraction on communities and the wider environment, we have committed £7.85 million under the strategic timber transport fund to improve timber transport infrastructure.

Our fundamental commitment to maintaining the national forest estate sits at the heart of our approach. We are committed to restoring 500 hectares of ancient woodland and establishing 650 hectares of new woodland. That will include work with partners to identify areas of vacant and derelict land for restoration.

We want to sustain the productive capacity of the estate, which is 3 million cubic meters of timber each year, but the estate delivers far more than timber. It plays a key role in tourism and leisure all across the country. Each year the estate welcomes 9 million visits. Our tourism partnership, Forest Holidays, goes from strength to strength. An £11.3 million cabin investment at Glentress is about to be submitted for planning consent. Local communities are also key to our ambitions. Currently more than 40 local partnerships are involved, offering tourism activity at Laggan, community allotments at Lesmahagow and Fort William, and ecotourism on Mull and Skye.

Over the past 10 years, 13,000 acres of the national forest estate have been transferred to community ownership. That includes land at Abriachan, Arkaig and Tighnabruaich. Through the community asset transfer scheme, we are aiming to transfer a further 700 acres this year; the first successful transfer was announced just last week on Skye.

In closing, I have set out the purpose behind the bill and highlighted its key objectives. I have also sought to place the bill and its measures in the wider context of policy and the approach to forestry and woodland. I believe that we can move forward with the bill’s general principles, and I am keen that we continue to maintain our consensual approach to modernising the legislative framework for forestry. I will therefore continue to work across the chamber to that end, to ensure that the bill becomes law, enabling Scotland’s forests and woodland to make their full and vibrant contribution to our economy, our environment and the people of Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Christine Grahame)

Thank you, cabinet secretary. I call Edward Mountain to speak on behalf of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Convener, you have a generous seven minutes or thereabouts.

Edward Mountain (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. As you say, I am speaking this afternoon as convener of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Sadly, as time is a bit limited, I cannot cover all of our report. However, I note the cabinet secretary’s detailed response, which was received last Friday, two working days before the debate.

The clear message that came through the evidence sessions was that the professional way that the staff of the Forestry Commission and Forest Enterprise undertook their work is recognised. The committee feels that it is very important that their skills are maintained and not lost. I note that the cabinet secretary, in his response, agrees.

We have heard that the Scottish Government proposes to split the functions of the Forestry Commission between a Government division and a new land management agency. Although that proposal is outwith the scope of the bill, we heard wide-ranging concerns about it from stakeholders. The Scottish Government should provide further reassurance to those stakeholders and the committee.

The Government needs to articulate how it will manage its forestry responsibilities; it also needs to provide much more detail on the creation of the proposed land management agency and how the new agency will work with the forestry division. The Scottish Government should also set out how forestry-related skills and expertise will be retained and developed under the new structure.

The committee felt that a clear, positive message should be sent to the industry and forestry staff about the importance of the industry as a whole. We believed that a simple way of doing that would be to designate the head of the proposed new forestry division as chief forester. I note that the Government will consider that idea further, and we welcome that.

We acknowledge the importance of the forestry strategy and recognise that timber production is vital to the rural economy. Forestry is a long-term industry that requires a secure future. It needs a strategy that enables producers, millers and merchants to invest in the expansion of their industries. The committee therefore felt that the bill must contain a statement of an overarching and high-level objective for the strategy that includes how forestry issues such as land use, planning, community empowerment, climate change and biodiversity will interact, as they clearly need to. It must also include a commitment to review the strategy every five years and to refresh it every 10 years. Therefore, amendments to the bill will be needed, and we welcome the Government’s acknowledgement of that in its response to the committee.

The committee has listened to stakeholders and believes that we need some clarity about definitions. In our report, we asked for terms such as “sustainable forest management” and “sustainable development” to be defined in the bill. We therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to include definitions of those terms in the strategy document.

I turn to forestry health and research. As the cabinet secretary said, tree-related diseases do not respect national boundaries, and nor should forestry research. The committee recommended that the Government should lodge an amendment to the bill to strengthen its provisions relating to tree health and other forestry research from a power to a duty. We also recommended that a framework agreement for a united UK approach to forestry research and tree health should be agreed and in place before the relevant sections of the bill come into force. I am therefore delighted that the cabinet secretary has announced today that that will be taken into account.

I turn to an area that caused the committee some difficulties. When it came to the acquisition and compulsory purchase of land for forestry reasons, we heard that such a power was in the 1967 act but that it had never actually been used. After considerable deliberation, the committee accepted the need for the retention of compulsory purchase powers to unlock the potential in forestry land. However, the majority of the committee felt that the Government had not provided sufficient justification for its proposed extension of compulsory purchase powers to cover sustainable development. We therefore recommended that the bill be amended and called on the Government to remove that provision. We note that the Government has said that it will consider that further and we urge it to do so. The cabinet secretary has said today that he is listening to appeals on that subject.

On land disposal and forest rationalisation, we recommend that, due to the long-term strategic nature of forestry, a commitment to reinvest capital from land sales in capital assets should be set out in the forestry strategy to ensure security and continuity over time. Although the Government acknowledged our views, it has not offered any undertaking in its response.

The committee questioned the definition of community body that is used in the bill and asked whether there needs to be a specific section on community bodies, given that section 17 allows Scottish ministers to sell, lease or gift land to anyone. The committee called on the Scottish Government to explore that issue further to determine whether the provisions on community bodies are required.

The committee agreed that a more appropriate definition of felling was required. We noted the Scottish Government’s reassurance that the felling directions contained in the bill will not be used to force private forestry owners to fell against their wishes. The committee was also of the view that the registration system for forestry operations should be proportionate and cost and resource effective.

On finance, the committee seeks reassurance from the Government that there will be no reduction in the financial transparency of the new forestry organisation.

On costs, we recognised the strength of the Forestry Commission brand and recommended that if a rebranding exercise must occur, costs be kept to a minimum. That might be achieved by a rolling approach, for example only changing branding when vehicles or equipment are replaced.

The committee acknowledged that the current Forestry Commission information technology system is not fit for purpose and will require an upgrade. Naturally, there were some concerns about Government-procured IT systems, and we look forward to seeing further detail from the Scottish Government on the exact costings.

Our report raises many issues, and the committee looks forward to seeing positive action on all our recommendations. Subject to responses to the points that we have raised in the report, the committee recommends that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

I am glad to speak in the debate, because forestry is a vital part of our rural economy. Scotland’s forestry sector currently contributes some £954 million per year to the economy, and supports 26,000 jobs. I believe, however, that we can do better. Planting more trees will secure the long-term supply of productive timber, create new jobs in rural areas, help Scotland to meet vital climate change targets and reduce timber imports.

Given that the UK is the second-largest importer of timber in the world, I cannot stress enough that we must do better. That is why I welcome the newly increased planting target, which will increase to 15,000 hectares by 2025. I believe that the target is achievable, but we have seen failings on the Scottish Government’s part before; it has missed its 10,000 hectare target every year since 2001. The 2025 aim will not be met unless the process of applying to plant trees is made easier and less expensive, and unless the forestry bill is fit for purpose. It is important that the timber that we grow is largely the productive timber that our sawmills and the economy need. Too much of what has been planted recently has been amenity woodland.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

Does Peter Chapman accept that perhaps there has been too hard a line drawn between farming land and forestry land? In the future, it needs to be easier to change land from one to the other.

Peter Chapman

I agree that there is a debate to be had. In the past, one was either a farmer or a forester, and the two did not go together. We need to try to break down those barriers. I accept much of what has been said on that.

Given that I have spoken about agriculture, I need to declare an interest. I did not think that I was going to stray into that area, but here we are: I have already done it. I thought that we were on trees.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

A belt-and-braces approach is never a bad idea in the chamber, Mr Chapman.

Peter Chapman

Where was I? I have lost my place.

It makes sense that we work together within the UK to ensure the health of our trees and to co-operate to stamp out disease; for example, on the spread of larch disease, which I have spoken about previously. The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee recommends that the Scottish Government develop an amendment to the bill to strengthen from a power to a duty the cross-border provisions relating to tree health and research.

There must be no reduction in Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the Scottish Government's performance in meeting targets following the reorganisation. Regular reviewing of progress is important, so we expect the Scottish Government to report back to Parliament on the progress that has been made towards meeting the expansion timetable.

The committee also recommends that the forestry strategy be reviewed every five years and refreshed every 10 years. The committee accepts that the current powers of compulsory purchase in the Forestry Act 1967 should remain in place for use in only the most exceptional of cases. However, the case has not been made for an expansion of those powers. A majority of the committee believe that it would be wrong for ministers to seek new powers to purchase land compulsorily for “sustainable development”. That poorly defined term would hand huge powers to ministers, which we do not believe is justifiable. At the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s evidence session on 7 June, the Scottish Government’s forestry and land management bill team failed to provide clarity on what constitutes “sustainable development” in the event of a compulsory purchase order being issued. We have seen vague definitions being used for crucial aspects of legislation before: they create ambiguity and unintentionally raise concerns among stakeholders. We need in the forestry strategy clear definitions of what “sustainable forest management” and “sustainable development” mean, so I welcome the Government’s willingness to consider providing more clarity.

The committee welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to lodge an amendment at stage 2 to provide a more appropriate definition of “felling”. The committee notes the Scottish Government’s reassurance that the felling directions in the bill would not be used to force private forestry owners to fell against their wishes. The system for registering notices to comply must also always be simple and cost effective.

I hope that the reorganisation will be achieved without the taxpayer funding unnecessary and expensive rebranding. I fully support the committee’s recommendation that rebranding be rolled out only as vehicles and equipment need to be replaced

It is also vital that estimates of the cost of the new IT system be provided to Parliament at the earliest opportunity. The Government has already presided over the common agricultural policy information technology fiasco, the effects of which are still impacting on rural communities. What safeguards will be in place to ensure that there is not another such debacle?

We welcome the bill, but some work is still required for it to become fully fit for purpose. We all want more afforestation and more skilled jobs to be created in our remote and rural communities, so we must work together to ensure that that becomes a reality and that we finally see the renaissance of Scotland’s woods and forests for the benefit of generations to come.

Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

The bill is required to take account of devolution of the Forestry Commission. However, the status of the new organisation was not a foregone conclusion. The Scottish Government decided not to continue with the Forestry Commission Scotland, but instead to take its functions in-house. Although the bill does not deal with that, there are significant concerns surrounding the decision and whether it is the best way forward, so I am glad that the cabinet secretary said in his opening remarks that he is giving that further consideration.

There are concerns regarding the loss of expertise and the potential that the new organisation will be staffed by career civil servants rather than by foresters. If the cabinet secretary continues with his proposals, it would be useful if he would consider how foresters could be placed in positions of influence in the new body. A number of suggestions that might provide some comfort were made to the committee—including, for instance, the creation of a post of chief forester, along the lines of the chief medical officer. The role would be that of an adviser to Government, but with the freedom to fight the corner of forestry within Government.

There are also calls for the setting up of an advisory group representing the industry and forestry communities in order to ensure that the new organisation stays close to the forestry sector and to the communities in which it operates. That could be a national committee with regional fora that could take advice from people in those communities. The new organisation must also have an eye to the social and economic impacts of forestry. It needs to be responsive to communities and to the needs of the environment, as well as to ensure that forestry flourishes. Those suggestions would all work towards keeping the organisation as close as possible to the people whom it serves in the industry and in communities.

The part of the bill that is most contentious among committee members is on the power of compulsory purchase for sustainable development. The evidence is clear that it is extremely difficult to exercise compulsory purchase and that the whole process requires review. However, it is also acknowledged that possession of the power would be an incentive for landowners to act in the interests of sustainable development; because of that, the power should remain in the bill.

At the moment, there are forests that are landlocked and it is impossible to harvest the trees. Some of those forests have been taken over by local communities that are able to utilise the timber locally, but that does not meet the national need for timber. If we are to substantially increase forestry, we must find ways in which land that is suitable for planting can be made more accessible. That land tends to be in remote areas where roads are few or, where there are roads, they are unable to take the strain of the heavy traffic that would be used to harvest the trees. It might be that landowners should work together to set a network of forest tracks through adjacent forestry or other land, which would enable harvesting. If a landowner was obstructive in that, the compulsory purchase power might bring them to the negotiating table.

There are other concerns about definitions. The definition of “sustainable development” is well used and recognised in other legislation, but there are concerns regarding the definition of “sustainable forest management”, which is new in the bill. The Scottish Government has made it clear that the definition might change over time, so it should not be included in the bill because that would be restrictive.

Options that have been suggested that could provide clarity include there being a working definition in the forestry strategy. My main concern about that is that it could impact on the definition of “sustainable development”, which would be detrimental. It would be preferable if the Scottish Government could, in the strategy, highlight the direction of travel towards attaining sustainable forest management. That would deal with any possible confusion.

There are specific provisions in the bill to delegate powers to communities. The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee received evidence that those powers may not be necessary. Given that the Scottish Government has also included the power to delegate functions to “any person” or organisation, it is not clear why the additional section on communities is required. Does the Scottish Government envisage circumstances in which communities would require additional powers and, if so, what are they?

There was also confusion about what the bill says about different types of land. It uses the terms “forestry land” and “other land”, but it is not clear why land that is held under the bill is defined in that way. Is all land that is held under the bill to be used for the purpose of sustainable management of forestry and, if not, for what purpose is it to be held? There is obviously unplanted land that is owned to promote forestry—that is, land that is used for fire breaks, for aesthetic purposes, for environmental purposes and so on. Is that defined as “forest land” because it is held for the specific reason of supporting forestry, or will it be termed “other land”? We need clarity on those categories of land, so that there will be no confusion.

There was a unanimous call for the strategy to be widely consulted on and for there to be greater parliamentary scrutiny of it. Given that a great deal of detail will be in the strategy rather than in the bill, we need to get it right. Is it possible that a committee of Parliament could be charged with taking evidence to scrutinise the strategy and reporting back to the Scottish Government?

We welcome the bill and the cabinet secretary’s agreement to consider again the organisational concerns that have been raised. I hope that he will also take on board the positive suggestions that we have made to improve the bill. We support the general principles of the bill.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to open debate. I ask for speeches of six minutes, but there is time for interventions to be taken, which I encourage.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The cabinet secretary took us back to the origins of the Forestry Commission in the 1919 bill, but I want to take us 400 years further back because, of course, the product of forestry is a strategic material. When James IV built the Great Michael, with its 10-foot-thick Scottish oak hull, that required that all the trees of Fife be cleared. Also, then, as now, we had to import wood from France and the Baltic states, and to use wood from forests across Scotland. Wood has been a strategic material for a long time. Indeed, when Henry VIII saw what James IV had done, he decided that he would build a boat that was even bigger than the Great Michael, and which, at 1,000 tons, was the biggest boat in the world. Flodden cut short the ambitions for use of the Great Michael, of course.

In 1919, we were responding to the strategic imperative to have wood for the trenches of the first world war, but it was clear that there was insufficient wood. Wood was recognised as an important strategic part of military operations.

However, as Peter Chapman reminded us, forestry is also of economic value. It might constitute but 1 per cent of our gross domestic product, but where that 1 per cent lies, it is very important to the communities that plant and sustain our forests, and to the sawmills that depend on predictable long-term access to wood. As it was in the 1500s, so it is in the 2000s.

Indeed, forestry is a very personal thing for many people. One of my late councillor colleagues—my good friend, Councillor Mitchell Burnett—who knew he was dying from a carcinoma, held on long enough to ensure that he got permission from Aberdeenshire Council for his grave to be on the edge of the forest that he was bequeathing to his daughter.

Forestry is the kind of long-term business whose interests we have to protect. The issue of sustainable forest management has come up several times already in the debate: it is important that what we do with land is sustainable. The debate around the meaning of “sustainable” is such that it will mean slightly different things in slightly different contexts. That is why it is proper that the meaning is not defined in the bill but is expressed clearly and unambiguously elsewhere so that we can discuss and challenge it.

The committee divided on the matter of compulsory purchase. Indeed, it is worth reminding members that the committees of this Parliament are rather freer from the strictures of the whip system than other parts of our operation perhaps are. When committees are working well, they seek to look objectively at the evidence that is before them so that individual committee members can come to their conclusions. The committee’s Scottish National Party group, because it is not a group, divided such that two were on one side of the argument and two were on the other side.

Edward Mountain

Will the member take an intervention?

Stewart Stevenson

I will, in a minute.

Fulton MacGregor and I joined Rhoda Grant and John Finnie in suggesting that extension of the compulsory purchase orders, which might never be used, would take people to decisions a bit faster. Mr Mountain might have come to a different view.

Edward Mountain

No—this is not a political point, but just a point. I think that there might be a member of the committee within the SNP group that Mr Stevenson has ignored. I think that there are five people in his group, not four. However, as Mr Stevenson was at the meeting concerned, I am sure that he will be able to comment on that, on reflection.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

It is unlike Stewart Stevenson to make a factual error.

Stewart Stevenson

No, Presiding Officer—I am constantly told by colleagues and even by friends that I am a larger-than-life character, so I count as one and a half and thus, when I add Fulton MacGregor to me, that is two and a half out of five. I jest. Edward Mountain, our ever-diligent convener, is of course correct. As a mere mathematician, I am arithmetically challenged by his intervention, which I accept because it is entirely correct.

I welcome the attention to the definition of “felling” in the bill, because it is important that we get that right. It is worth reminding ourselves that nature fells woods, as well. Where my wife and I have stayed for the past 14 years, we are surrounded on three sides by about 40 hectares of forest that appears to have been all but abandoned, and nature is busily felling what appears to me to be a mature forest. It is important that some aspects of that are addressed as we progress the bill.

I was delighted to hear the cabinet secretary referring to Abriachan, of which I have fond memories. I visited there when I was about three or four years old, as we went up in an old American ex-army jeep to Claude McLennan’s croft at the top of Abriachan, which at that time was a very primitive place indeed. The community there having the opportunity to take some control of its own destiny will be a way in which Abriachan will have fundamentally changed since I visited it in—I think—the late 1940s.

The important thing in the bill that I welcome, but which others have mixed views on, is what is essentially the separation between policy and operation. That will lead us to a clearer way in which to take matters forward.

It was my delight previously to be the minister who was responsible for the Forestry Commission Scotland and, in particular, to see the highly automated sawmill at Nairn, in the cabinet secretary’s constituency, which illustrates how the forestry industry is a high-tech industry of economic and environmental importance to Scotland. I support what is proposed in the bill.

John Scott (Ayr) (Con)

I declare an interest as a farmer and an owner of land on which there is some woodland.

I welcome the stage 1 debate on the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill, which will transfer the powers and duties of the Forestry Commission in Scotland to Scottish ministers. Under devolution under the Scotland Act 1998, the bill has been on the cards for some time. It will wind up the Forestry Commission as a UK cross-border authority and, as well as transferring powers and duties to Scottish ministers, will transfer responsibilities and liabilities for staff and property.

The bill will repeal the 1967 act in Scotland and underpin new cross-border arrangements, as well as creating new organisational structures for forestry land management in Scotland. There is a lot to do and it is important to get the bill right, given what a strategic resource our timber has become and is in Scotland, supporting around 26,000 jobs and close on £1 billion of gross value added annually.

The Scottish Conservatives welcome much of the bill but, in the time available, I will focus on what needs to be improved and where we believe change is necessary. First, we are concerned about the lack of clarity around key definitions, particularly the definitions of forestry land, sustainable forest management, sustainable development, community body and felling. I note and welcome the fact that Fergus Ewing has stated in his letter that he will make amendments at stage 2 to clarify at least some of those definitions.

We have concerns about the expansion of compulsory purchase powers for sustainable development. The Government has not made the case for expansion of those powers, and as the powers in the 1967 act have lain unused for 50 years, it is less than obvious to me why they have to be enhanced beyond the provision in the 1967 act.

John Mason

Will the member take an intervention?

John Scott

No, thank you.

We are also concerned about community bodies and community empowerment, what constitutes a community body and why there are so many definitions in different legislation of what constitutes a community body.

Unlike the 1967 act, the bill is not well structured or easily understood. Too much definition of key terms and policy intent is left to subsequent ministerial intervention. This style of creating vague and ambivalent legislation has, I regret to say, become one of the defining features of the Scottish National Party Government in recent years. I cite as evidence the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 and the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016, to name but three. It is simply not good enough for poorly thought-out, poorly drafted and defined and poorly constructed legislation to be laid before Parliament regularly. It runs the risk of bringing Parliament into disrepute.

Furthermore, we are concerned about the development of yet another new information technology system, especially given the as yet unanswered governance questions about the failed CAP payment delivery system as well as the NHS 24 IT system and the failed i6 system for Police Scotland.

We also have concerns about the reinvestment of funds generated from selling off the forestry estate. It is important that such income be reinvested into the purchasing of land for further afforestation.

Although we support the modest expansion of planting targets, it is vital that provision is also made for the future harvesting of crop on new land through the roads infrastructure, which is already under enormous pressure in Ayrshire, south-west Scotland and, indeed, elsewhere.

Industry stakeholders and I would also like more information on how cross-border arrangements will be managed once the bill passes into law. We would welcome that information at the earliest possible opportunity, although the cabinet secretary did make an announcement in that regard today, which I was certainly pleased to hear.

Another concern, and one that was highlighted by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, is that the legislation has been introduced in the absence of a full consultation on the development of a Scottish Government policy on exemption from the offence of illegal felling. Indeed, the DPLR Committee has recommended that the Scottish Government should lodge amendments to the bill at stage 2 that will make provision for exemption from the offence of unauthorised felling. I welcome the fact that a consultation is now under way, but it should have been done before.

Further, the DPLR Committee has concerns about the need for clarity in the forestry strategy on how the relevant provisions of the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill, taken in conjunction with the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, will apply to forestry and sustainable development.

I congratulate Forestry Commission Scotland on its enormous success in the post-war delivery of the timber resource that we have in the United Kingdom and note the long-term approach that it has taken. I hope that the Scottish Government will put in place similar structures that will develop a similar long-term developmental view and build on the asset that we currently enjoy.

The Forestry Commission Scotland brand is one of the most successful and trusted brands in the United Kingdom. I hope that we in Scotland will be able to continue that good work as we go our own way, following the passing of the bill.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

I think that it would be true to say that all the committee members and the vast majority of the people of Scotland consider forestry to be a very good thing and that it should be encouraged.

We may not have met our planting targets in recent years but, as the report says, the details of targets and how we get there need to be in the strategy rather than in the bill.

The committee visited a number of forests and forestry-related sites, such as the new forestry pier on Mull. It was extremely good to see investment in such an asset.

We have heard evidence on a wider range of issues than those in the bill. That was very useful in emphasising, for example, the need to take a long-term view of forestry, the need for tree planting to be more mixed than in the past and the processing industry’s need for stability and long-term planning. We have also heard that, in the past, there might have been too hard and fast a line between what land was for forestry and what land was for farming and that there could perhaps be more room for interaction and overlap, making it easier for land users to change the use and even to have mixed use in some places, which would benefit the tree-planting targets, as well as animals, by giving them shelter in bad weather for example.

The aim of the bill is to complete the devolution of forestry, which we heard has been broadly welcomed. With so much land in Scotland—actually, or potentially—consisting of forests, it certainly makes sense that we should be responsible for the sector here in Scotland.

We spent a fair bit of time on definitions, such as what “sustainable forest management” means and whether it should be in the bill. In paragraph 60 of our report, we recommend that the definition should be

“included in the ... Strategy. The same applies to the term ‘sustainable development’ which is used in relation to ‘other land’.”

I like a bill or an act to have as much of the main content in it as possible. However, I also agree that we do not want to have too much detail in primary legislation, where that detail can be become outdated and would take a fair bit of time to change. Therefore, having the definitions in the forestry strategy seems to be a pretty reasonable position on which we can agree.

It quickly became clear to the committee that the definition of “felling” as “intentionally killing a tree” needed improvement; I am glad to see that the Government agrees.

On compulsory purchase, it is perhaps not surprising that there were a variety of views on the REC Committee. Some of our more right-wing landowning members perhaps saw no place for compulsory purchase and considered that the rich and the powerful should be allowed to do whatever they wanted. At the other end of the spectrum, some might like to see more public intervention on how our land is used. However, the majority of the committee considered that there was a place for compulsory purchase broadly in line with the previous arrangements.

John Scott, who did not take my intervention, made the point that compulsory purchase legislation has not been used in the past. That is certainly the case on the surface, but in reality we do not know how effective the legislation has been, because it has always been there in the background when negotiations have been taking place

John Scott

The member says that that is

“the case on the surface”.

However, that is not the case; it is a matter of fact that the legislation has not been used.

John Mason

It has not been used in the sense of someone going to court to go through the process of compulsory purchase. However, if I am sitting down with someone to negotiate land issues, my having, in the background, the power of compulsory purchase could have an impact on our negotiations. That came up clearly at committee. No one can prove that the existence of the power has an effect, but I think that we all accepted that it probably does.

I want to touch on a few issues to do with the financial memorandum. First, Scottish Environment LINK pointed out that Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland currently have separate budgets, so the two figures that we see in the Scottish budget each year might be reduced to one figure in future. However, I think that the Government has now reassured us that it intends to provide more information, rather than less, after the reorganisation. It will be for our committee and the Parliament as a whole to hold the Government to account on its commitment.

Secondly, there will be IT costs, and everyone gets nervous when IT is mentioned. However, all national Governments, local government and the private sector have traditionally had problems with forecasting IT costs exactly. That is a challenge, but it is not just a challenge for this place. The committee was informed that even without the bill there will be IT costs, because the existing Forestry Commission computer system is not considered to be fit for purpose. In its response to the committee, the Government said that

“more information will be provided prior to stage 3”.

That is welcome.

Thirdly, the committee discussed the whole question of rebranding of signs, uniforms, vehicles and so on. This is perhaps unusual for a UK institution: the Forestry Commission has a pretty positive image among the public, so it is understandable that witnesses, including trade unions, said that they did not want to lose that. Witnesses also did not want a lot of money to be spent on repainting vehicles if the money could be used to plant trees. However, if we are to have a new organisation, with a new name, some money will have to be spent. It was reassuring to hear that reserves will be in place, so that current spending budgets can be protected. The compromise position, which members mentioned, and which I think that the committee accepted, is that changes can be made over time rather than in one big bang. Perhaps the Forestry Commission signs and vehicles can be repainted gradually over time, in an approach similar to the one that ScotRail took when it rebranded its trains.

We have had a number of briefings, and I thank the organisations that provided them, in particular the Scottish Wildlife Trust, RSPB Scotland and the Confederation of Forest Industries UK, or Confor. SWT and the RSPB made the point that the bill should make specific provision for biodiversity and native woodland creation. Many members agree with the principle; the questions for me are, first, whether we would be duplicating what is stated elsewhere, and secondly, whether such provision would be better placed in the strategy than in the bill.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Please conclude.

John Mason

I will be interested to hear the Government’s thinking on that. SWT suggests hypothecation of funds, which I would be—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That is not concluding; concluding means saying, “Thank you very much,” and sitting down.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

As we have heard from many members, our forests and woodlands are precious natural resources. The Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill is important for the future of Scotland, for a wide range of reasons.

Scrutiny of some of those reasons is the responsibility of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, of which I am a member. I was delighted to be asked by that committee to be its reporter for the bill. I thank the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and its convener for the welcome that I received at the relevant meetings, and I thank my committee’s clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre for their support throughout the process, which led to my committee’s letter to the REC Committee, for its consideration.

I will highlight the main points of the letter and, if I have time, make one or two points of my own. I emphasise the importance that my committee attaches to the bill’s overarching policy objectives, specifically in relation to forest functions. From our perspective, effective forest management offers the opportunity for multiple environmental and land management benefits. We said in our letter:

“The Committee is unclear as to what degree wider policy objectives, including those relating to biodiversity, deer management and climate change, are reflected in the Bill and in particular, are to be taken account of in the preparation of the Forestry Strategy.”

I note that the Scottish Government response states that better alignment will be considered at stage 2.

My committee also

“considers there is merit in including the need to have regard to biodiversity in deer management requirements on the face of the Bill.”

I note that the Scottish Government response states:

“there are a large number of policies, statutory duties and frameworks which are relevant to the economic, environmental and social outcomes of forestry, hence we will consider these matters carefully in order to avoid limiting the scope of the linkages catered for by any amendment.”

At this stage, our committee is still considering an amendment, but we are happy to be involved in dialogue on that.

I draw focus to the term “sustainable development”, the definition of which regularly emerges as an on-going challenge for legislators. In the previous session of this Parliament, the RACCE Committee, of which I was a member, grappled with that term in relation to the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016 and reached a similar conclusion to that of our committee. In our letter, we state:

“We consider that the definition of sustainable development is widely understood and it is unnecessary to include this in the Bill.”

In this context, our letter does stress our view that

“the duties to promote sustainable forest management and sustainable development in Sections 9 and 13 should also be on every public body and office-holder and not just Scottish Ministers.”

I note the Scottish Government response that

“the duty is placed on the Scottish Ministers in the context of their new functions for forestry regulation, development and support. These functions rightly sit with one body.”

I will take that back to our committee and discuss it with members in detail.

My committee was

“unclear as to what the issue or problem the Part 3 provisions in relation to sustainable development are intended to address ... the circumstances in which the provisions are intended to be used; how they will result in the establishment of a ‘land agency’; and how this relates to the Scottish Land Commission.”

The Scottish Government response states:

“The purpose of the wider land management powers (those linked to furthering sustainable development), is to create more flexibility in the use of the Scottish Ministers’ land (the National Forest Estate) and enable a wider land management role for the new agency ... to help manage other land, including publicly-owned land, in the national interest”.

That will aid our committee discussions prior to stage 2.

We regard the acquisition, compulsory purchase and disposal of land clause as a backstop arrangement and recognise its importance as such. However, the bill

“gives Scottish Ministers compulsory purchase powers in order to further the achievement of sustainable development for the first time. When questioned, the Scottish Government did not provide a rationale for the extension of those powers”.

Edward Mountain

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry; I am a bit unclear about whether the member is talking about her views or is representing the views of her committee. The views that she is representing as coming from that committee have not been transmitted to the committee of which I am the convener. I would be grateful if that could be clarified.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will let Ms Beamish clarify that for herself.

Claudia Beamish

With respect, the points that I am making are quotes from our letter to the REC Committee. I will be happy to discuss the matter afterwards with the convener. I have already expressed my recognition of the welcome that I received there.

On the broad land management purpose of the bill, my committee asked for clarification before stage 2 of section 13, as we were

“concerned that the consultation that informed the Bill did not seek views on this”.

It appears that Scottish Government officials were unable to set out why the powers in section 13 on management of land for further development were needed or in what circumstances those would be used. From the Scottish Government response, I understand that they relate to flexibility.

In our letter, we make reference to other land and argue that we can see

“no justification for a difference in approach”

in the bill between national forest land and other land. Again, we ask the Scottish Government to reflect on that before stage 2.

The definition of a community body in section 19 is, in my committee’s view, already clearly defined in previous legislation. In this bill, it

“differs from the definition in previous legislation dealing with similar issues.”

That could cause confusion on a complex issue. We address that in more detail in our letter and ask the Scottish Government to reflect on it prior to stage 2.

In relation to the delegation of functions to community bodies, my committee is unclear how the bill adds to the community empowerment agenda or to what is already provided for in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.

The final issue from my committee’s perspective is that of tree health, which is part of our remit and which I know is treated with the utmost seriousness across the Parliament. We emphasise the necessity of cross-border co-operation on that, and I was pleased by the cabinet secretary’s explanation of the division of labour in that area.

I hope that the issues that the ECCLR Committee raised in its letter to the REC Committee are found to be of value, and we would be pleased to have dialogue on them with the Scottish Government and the convener of the REC Committee—I do not think that I have time to address what he said in his intervention now.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

No, you do not. Thank you very much, Ms Beamish.

Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

I express my pleasure at being able to contribute to today’s stage 1 debate on the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill as the fifth SNP member of the Parliament’s Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Although I represent Uddingston and Bellshill, which is an area in the central belt of Scotland that, beyond our exceptional Strathclyde country park, does not necessarily come to mind when the forestry sector is discussed, the sector is one that I have been a champion of throughout my time in this place, including my time on the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. It forms an important part of Scotland’s economy and contributes to our vibrancy as a nation. Given the sector’s importance in Scotland, it is only right that it should be fully accountable to our Scottish Parliament and to the Scottish ministers, and that is what the bill provides for.

The bill will improve the accountability and transparency of legislation, modernise the current legislative framework and enable more effective use to be made of Scotland’s publicly owned land, on which many members across the chamber can agree. I am glad that the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee supports the general principles of the bill. In particular, I note that the committee heard that the majority of stakeholders very much welcome the opportunity for forestry matters to be fully devolved to Scotland and recognise the need to update our forestry legislation, which, as I have mentioned, is one of the key pillars of the bill.

The devolution of forestry was a manifesto commitment of the SNP in our 2011, 2015 and 2016 manifestos, and we remained committed to bringing it about in our 2016-17 programme for government. That leads me to another of the bill’s key pillars—the improvement of accountability, transparency and policy alignment. That is an important area, because there is some confusion about the extent to which forestry is currently devolved. At present, the Scottish ministers determine the strategy and policy for forestry in Scotland but, since devolution, the management of forestry, including the management of the national forest estate, has remained with the Forestry Commission—a UK non-ministerial department and a cross-border public authority.

Rightly, the bill will bring about the transfer of the powers and duties of the forestry commissioners in Scotland—including in relation to plant health—to the Scottish ministers. That will mean that the responsibility for all plant health in Scotland will reside in one place. Ultimately, it will fall to the Scottish ministers to promote sustainable forest management and to publish a forestry strategy.

Crucially, the bill not only creates a legal duty to promote sustainable forest management but establishes a modernised legislative framework that fully supports, regulates and promotes the development and growth of forestry in Scotland. I believe that the bill will bring about a new future for the industry.

The final pillar of the bill that I wish to reflect on is the fact that it will enable effective use to be made of Scotland’s publicly owned land by making the Scottish ministers responsible for managing the national forest estate to deliver economic, social and environmental outcomes. That includes the ability to enter into arrangements to manage other people’s land, including that of public bodies. That fulfils a further manifesto commitment to establish a land management agency and will enable ministers to delegate land management functions to community bodies.

In my remaining time—I will try to stay within my seven minutes, as I do not want to get cut off—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

It is six minutes, Mr Lyle.

Richard Lyle

Okay. I will keep going.

I wish to reflect on the additional steps beyond the bill that are required to complete the devolution journey and to give further recognition of the importance of the sector in Scotland beyond that which I have stated.

It is important to state that the bill is not the end point in completing the journey of the devolution of forestry, as there will be two further pieces of work once the bill has completed its passage. Indeed, the bill is the first of three principal activities that are required to complete the devolution of forestry.

The first piece of work is the passage of secondary orders under the Scotland Act 1998 in the UK Parliament to wind up the forestry commissioners as a cross-border public authority and to make other consequential provisions in the light of the bill. That will help to establish new collaborative cross-border arrangements with the UK Government and the Welsh Government, which have been managed hitherto by the Forestry Commission, and to make arrangements for transferring some of the forestry commissioners’ property and liabilities to the Scottish ministers. Financial, business and regulatory impacts will be considered as part of the development of those orders, in line with standard requirements.

The second piece of work is the establishment of new organisational arrangements by transferring to the Scottish Government the activities that are presently delivered by the forestry commissioners in Scotland through Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland.

I am sure that members agree that Scotland’s forests and woodlands are among our greatest and most valuable rural assets. The forestry sector is worth £1 billion per annum and supports 26,000 jobs. On every occasion on which I speak in the chamber on the forestry sector, I like to reiterate that, although the sector is incredibly important to our economy, it plays a hugely important role in tackling climate change, in protecting and growing biodiversity and in natural flood management. It also contributes to the improvement of general health and wellbeing across Scotland.

I am delighted that the bill will help to continue the journey towards the devolution of the forestry sector. That will enable us to work together collectively to deliver for that important sector and for Scotland.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

I, too, welcome the bill and support its principles. Like other members, I thank the organisations for their briefings.

Much has been made of the number of jobs that forestry supports. I have the figure of 25,000 jobs, but I have also heard that the industry supports 26,000 jobs—if that is 1,000 extra jobs since my briefing, that is great—and that it is worth £1 billion.

It is significant that Confor has said that

“the bill must provide the right assistance”.

The right assistance, of course, is not mutually exclusive work in the industrial and environmental aspects. The Scottish Wildlife Trust has said:

“Scotland’s woodlands are currently not realising their full potential for helping Scotland adapt to climate change. More connected riparian woodlands for example, could prevent flooding; reduce erosion; improve water quality; and allow wildlife to move through the landscape.”

That is of growing importance. As quite a number of members have said, woodlands are an important carbon sink to help to mitigate climate change.

The issue that we always encounter with bills is what is and is not stated in them. Our stage 1 report talks about

“planting targets and a commitment to appropriate levels of reforestation in the Forestry Strategy.”

Confor seeks an amendment to include planting targets and future wood supply.

We have heard that the forestry industry is a long-term one, and the strategy’s review period has been the subject of much discussion. It is important that the review period includes consultation with all the forestry stakeholders. It has been said that the sector depends on a long-term vision, and something jumped out at me in the cabinet secretary’s response to that. He said:

“For example, there is a known unintended consequence of the current seven year cycle for the CAP in that it leads to a suppression of woodland creation”.

We certainly do not want that, and we do not want the uncertainty that Brexit will bring. Long-term assurances are important to the industry, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government will reflect on the strategy. It is important that the strategy is a living document.

There is also a call for a strengthened commitment to reforestation, which can be seen as going hand in glove with that. The Scottish Wildlife Trust certainly sees the strategy as an opportunity to increase the quality of Scotland’s native woodlands.

Forestry is everywhere. We have heard from members with urban constituencies that there is an impact in those places. I commend the work that is being done in the hearts of our cities and across the country by organisations such as the Woodland Trust and community groups.

It is also good that the Scottish Government acknowledges the interest that stakeholders have in the organisational arrangements and that it is going to provide a statement.

There is clearly a lot of affection for the Forestry Commission. I am a former employee of it, and my father and my father-in-law were employed by it. It is important that the concerns are recognised—indeed, we heard that reiterated in the cabinet secretary’s speech. In the social and environmental sector of forestry, small businesspeople and enterprises are grateful for the technical support, advice and financial stimulus that they receive from the Forestry Commission. In a communication to me, they expressed concern that it will be “submerged into Victoria Quay”.

Fergus Ewing

I am happy to give the reassurance that that should not happen. Moreover, we recently extended grant finance to small cabinetmakers and joiners who are using Scottish woods, and they are delighted.

John Finnie

I am grateful for that assurance from the cabinet secretary. The communication that I mentioned went on to say that the Forestry Commission is a rural success story, and that is certainly how I see it.

The concerns that exist around that could, in part, be offset by something that the committee proposes—the establishment of a chief forester post. That would be entirely consistent with having a chief planner, a chief medical officer and a chief scientist, and it would send a clear signal about the commitment to the forestry profession. I note that the Scottish Government has said that it will consider the proposal. I hope that it will be given real, detailed thought.

On the definition of sustainable forest management, I have looked at what the Scottish Woodland Trust and Confor say about the definition that they would go with, and their views seem identical. The definition goes on about the

“stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains, and where appropriate enhances, their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity and vitality and their potential to fulfil, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions at local, national and global levels, and does not cause damage to other ecosystems.”

That brings me to what we heard from the cabinet secretary about the cross-border and tree health issues. I found that very reassuring, and I understand that there is a letter to the committee about that.

I will move quickly on to the strategic timber transport fund, which has been alluded to. It is actually cheaper and more environmentally friendly to transport timber to Norbord from Argyll via boats, so I would commend that approach.

On the management of land by Scottish ministers, I do not share the concerns that many members have expressed. As my colleague John Mason highlighted, it is right to have a range of options available to people in land negotiations, and compulsory purchase powers is one of those options. From my previous employment as a councillor, I am aware of a ransom strip. People will understand that the public good cannot be held back in that way.

Similarly, I look forward to the definition of “sustainable development” in the bill, although I have no issues with that. As I said, I was happily one of the minority.

What is set out in the bill is important. I would like to see native woodland creation targets in legislation, as they tie up with sustainable deer management, which is also important. I do not think that many members have commented on the fact that funds that are raised from disposals from the national forest estate should be reinvested. I hope that we will get a long-term commitment from the Scottish Government to do that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Gail Ross, who may or may not be followed by Mike Rumbles, who has left the chamber.

Gail Ross (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)

Despite John Mason’s apparent surprise, I do not think that it came as a surprise to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee that the Forestry Commission Scotland is held in extremely high regard by its stakeholders, people in the sector, its staff and the public as a whole. Its branding is instantly recognisable and there has rightly been a high level of interest in the current proposals and what they will mean for the industry and the environment.

Anyone who has read the committee’s report or watched any of its meetings will know about the high level of scrutiny that we have, rightly, given the bill. It is a hugely important piece of work that will help the Scottish Government not only to achieve its planting targets but to diversify the forest estate and contribute to conservation, biodiversity and meeting our climate change targets.

As John Mason mentioned, the committee visited Mull, where we heard about forestry on the island. We were a little bit nervous about midges that day, but Stewart Stevenson told us that they fly only when the wind speed is less than 5mph and we were lucky that there was a breeze that day. I also went out with the Forestry Commission for a day in Sutherland, and we heard hours of evidence on the bill here in the Scottish Parliament.

I thank all those who took the time to come to the Parliament or to submit written evidence. It is great to see that so many individuals and organisations are passionate about forestry and woodland in Scotland. I also thank the committee clerks, SPICe, my fellow committee members and the members of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee—particularly Claudia Beamish.

Our main objectives for the report were to understand the current functions of the Forestry Commission and Forest Enterprise Scotland, to find out how the proposals would work under the Scottish ministers, as is proposed, and to put forward our recommendations to the Scottish Government. As the cabinet secretary laid out in his opening remarks, the bill has three main aims: to improve accountability and the transparency of the legislation, to modernise the current legislative framework and to enable more effective use of Scotland’s publicly owned land.

I will explain where we are and what is proposed. Forestry Commission Scotland currently provides policy, advice, regulation and grants, and Forest Enterprise Scotland is an executive agency of the Forestry Commission that manages the national forest estate. The new structure proposes that the Forestry Commission’s functions be carried out by a dedicated forestry division of the Scottish Government, which will be responsible for grants, regulation, support and development, and that Forest Enterprise Scotland will become forestry and land Scotland, which will still manage the national forest estate.

I am pleased that the Scottish Government has agreed with several of the recommendations in the stage 1 report and that several more are under consideration. Agreement has been reached on the inclusion of an acceptable definition of “sustainable forest management” and a working definition of “sustainable development” in the Scottish forestry strategy. There is also agreement on the integration of the goals of the forestry strategy with the UK forestry standard and on the provision of guidance on felling to private forestry owners as well as on the need to look at the definition of felling. In addition, agreement has been reached on the proposal that registration for notices to comply should be proportionate and cost and resource effective, and that the rebranding costs should be kept as low as possible. As has been stated, the committee recommended that vehicles should be rebranded only when that is necessary.

The committee heard from many people about the opportunities that the bill presents, but we also heard a number of concerns that must be addressed. The Scottish Government must allay any concerns that have been raised by stakeholders about the new set-up giving control to Scottish ministers, and we have heard from the cabinet secretary that that will happen.

The Scottish Government should also give consideration to the post of chief forester and should give cast-iron guarantees that there will be no loss of expertise or specialisms, citing examples of how those will be retained and developed further. Consideration must be given to a regular review of the forestry strategy at least every five years, with a full refresh every 10 years, and Parliament must have the opportunity to scrutinise the strategy before it is agreed. Consultation with stakeholders must be thorough and wide.

We would like to see an overarching, high-level statement of ambition that makes it clear that modern forestry strategy and practices will reflect an integrated approach to land use, community interests, planning, biodiversity and the environment. We all agreed that cross-border working on tree health, disease and forestry science is essential and must continue and be strengthened, and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement on that today.

For the existing staff and for the people who may wish to make a career in forestry in the future, as well as for the health and expansion of our forest estate and for the wellbeing of our citizens in both rural and urban areas, given the current climate, it has never been more important that we get forestry right. The committee supports the general principles of the bill, and we ask that the Parliament do likewise.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

The Liberal Democrats support the bill. It is right that we update the legislation on forestry to ensure that we have a thriving and profitable industry. I am encouraged by the improved targets for tree planting that the cabinet secretary outlined and I wish him well in achieving them. Let us hope that we achieve them over the next few years.

In its report to the Parliament on the bill, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee makes a number of recommendations to improve the bill, which we fully support. I am, of course, a member of the committee, which took a great deal of evidence from stakeholders in its stage 1 inquiry.

One of the most important areas of concern in the bill has been the separation of the Forestry Commission’s functions. The committee has called on the Scottish Government to provide further reassurance about the practical implications of its proposals. I am pleased that the minister acknowledges that in the Government’s response to the committee’s stage 1 report.

The other contentious issue in the bill is extending the powers of the Scottish ministers for the compulsory purchase of land. Real concern was expressed to the committee about why, given that the compulsory purchase powers in the 1967 act have never been used—I repeat, never been used—ministers wish not only to transfer them to the new legislation but to extend them. I do not like the idea of Parliament giving up its powers to ministers at the best of times, but to extend further the powers of compulsory purchase that were given to ministers back in 1967 and have—I will say it for the third time—never been used seems to me to be bizarre in the extreme.

John Finnie

I take it that, when the member talks about the powers being used, he means people going to court. Does he accept that they have an application short of going to court, which is about dispute resolution?

Mike Rumbles

Whichever way we look at it, the powers have never been used—I say it for the fourth time in case people do not understand that.

I have to say to John Mason that I, for one, am not rich. I do not consider myself powerful and I am certainly not a landowner. I do not support those unnecessary measures, so I do not know whom he was targeting. Perhaps he was targeting someone else—that is not for me to say—but he is not quite right.

The evidence to the committee on the matter was clear, and I was pleased when the committee did its job in a vote—a vote that, I am also pleased to say, did not simply divide along party lines. That is really important. The committee recommended that the Government should change its mind on the matter and that the compulsory purchase powers in the 1967 act should be transferred to the bill—I was not particularly keen on that but I agreed the report—but not extended.

I hope that the Government listens to the committee. I notice that, in his written response, the minister notes the recommendation. I hope that he does more than that and lodges amendments at stage 2 to reflect it. That is the parliamentary committee doing its job. We are here to take evidence, listen to it and, without partisanship, try to get the best results on the matter. We are all in favour of the bill and we want to make it work.

I hope that the Government recognises that, because the bill can be further improved in other ways. I would like to see an amendment at stage 2 to make it clear that the strategic objectives of any land acquisition and disposal should be set out in the Scottish forestry strategy. Otherwise, there is no guarantee or requirement for there to be any strategic plan for acquisition or disposal and the whims of ministers would rule.

I return to the fact that I have always believed that it is wrong to give too much power away to ministers. I made that point to Ross Finnie when, as rural affairs minister, he introduced legislation in the first two parliamentary sessions and I voted against him. I make the point again. It is not a party-political point. Parliamentarians should be wary of handing over unrestricted powers to ministers of any political hue. I am not attacking the current minister; I am talking about ministers of any political party.

In conclusion, Presiding Officer, this is a good bill and the Liberal Democrats are happy to support it. However, as I have pointed out, there is room for improvement and we would indeed like to see it improved. Thank you.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Linda Fabiani)

I have a little bit of time in hand, if anybody wants to take advantage of that with interventions—although not just random ones for the sake of it.

I call Fulton MacGregor, to be followed by Finlay Carson.

Fulton MacGregor (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, I support the general principles of the bill.

It has been an interesting learning curve for me, with my background primarily in social work and social science. I learned a lot through the bill, and I am grateful for the opportunity to have done that.

A strong forestry sector is important to a vibrant Scotland and it is important that forestry in Scotland is fully accountable to the Parliament. The bill makes forestry fully accountable to the Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament, and, as I said, it is an important economic sector in Scotland, worth £1 billion annually.

The committee heard from a range of stakeholders, as others have mentioned, who welcome the opportunity to fully devolve forestry matters to Scotland and recognise that there is a real need to update forestry legislation.

Completing the devolution of forestry has been a long-standing commitment of this Government, and I am pleased that we are now taking steps to complete the process. By doing so, we will ensure that the economic, social and environmental benefits that are already delivered by forestry in Scotland are protected and nurtured. It is safe to say that this Government is committed to ensuring that forestry can deliver more in the future, and we hope to provide stability and a long-term plan for the industry.

Sustainable forestry is at the heart of the bill, and by putting safeguards in place that ensure that our forestry land is being used in a way that promotes sustainable forest management, we are suitably protecting the industry. That is important for ensuring that our forests provide biodiversity, productivity and regenerational capacity, and it ultimately ensures that no damage is done to other ecosystems. That approach is in line with Forest Europe’s definition of forest strategy.

I also want to comment on the idea of enhancing a sustainable domestic timber sector. We must do so while recognising the important contribution that forestry makes to rural communities across Scotland. I believe that the creation of the new forestry bill allows us to redefine forestry and ensure that our industry is ready for the future. I believe that we will now be able to ensure that any long-term economic impacts, as well as the environmental sustainability of a vital industry in Scotland, are safeguarded.

Presiding Officer, native woodlands are beneficial to us all. They provide a habitat for a wide range of species, and they provide environmental benefits, as others have said. They can even act as a social space for us all to enjoy. Woodland habitats can give people the opportunity to interact with wildlife in a natural setting, both in an informal way and in the promotion of more formal activities such as environmental education.

As I have said in the chamber before, I like Munro climbing—in fair weather, I must add. There is nothing better than being up there when there is also forest and the smell of pine. I know that anybody else who walks through the forest will agree with that. Just at the weekend I took the family to Cuningar loop, which is not in my constituency—if my geography is right, it is in Clare Haughey’s; if not, I apologise to the member.

John Mason

You are right.

Fulton MacGregor

Am I? Thank you, John. It is a fantastic facility.

Back in my constituency, I recently met with Charles Dundas from the Woodland Trust and had a walk around Drumpellier country park. I had not been aware prior to that that there is ancient woodland there but I am quite proud of that fact now. One per cent of Scotland is covered in ancient woodland, and now I have found out that some of it is in my constituency, which is really good. During that walk we also spoke about deer management, an issue that has been raised by the Scottish Wildlife Trust as well as others.

It is probably worth saying that that was not the only time that I have had contact with the trust on constituency matters. Recently I was involved in a community dispute in which a local company cut down a number of trees that had been in place for more than 20 years without notice to or consultation with residents, who considered the trees to be part of their home. Although it would not be appropriate to get into more detail here in the chamber, the case highlights the need for some of the aspects of community involvement that the committee took evidence on.

Woodlands are natural deer habitats, and the creation of a new woodland would ensure that deer have a suitable habitat and allow them to colonise appropriate areas. Like John Finnie, I would be inclined to consider the Woodland Trust’s suggestion that all owners and managers of private forest and woodland have a responsibility to ensure that arrangements are in place to manage deer.

I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government acknowledges the concerns expressed by stakeholders. As set out by the cabinet secretary,

“the Scottish Government acknowledge the importance of retaining the local office networks and sustaining opportunities for interchange between agency and division.”

That is in response to concerns about a potential loss of expertise and skills. The Scottish Government goes on to say:

“The issue of skills retention is a focus of the ‘New Agency’ and ‘New Division’ projects under the recently established Forestry Devolution Programme.”

It continues:

“These projects will be identifying ways to continue to recognise and value engagement with the professional bodies and identify jobs requiring specific professional qualifications, such as in forestry.”

I will touch briefly on compulsory purchase orders. I will get involved in a maths dispute here, but I believe that I was 33 per cent of the SNP team that was in a minority on the committee, with Stewart Stevenson accounting for the other 66 per cent. My view on that—

David Stewart (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

Is it SNP policy that Stewart Stevenson counted as one and a half members, as he testified earlier?

Fulton MacGregor

I could not possibly comment on that, although he certainly managed to dig himself out of a hole earlier with his one and a half members point.

On a serious note, I return to compulsory purchase orders. I mentioned my previous experience in social work because CPO reminds me of a child protection order, which is what we used to mean when we said CPO. John Finnie made an important point about legal status. Child protection orders are rarely used and accessed and it is probably not too extreme to imagine a day when we would not need CPOs.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There is no time left, Mr MacGregor.

Fulton MacGregor

I will develop the point anyway, which is that we would not want CPOs not to be there. When child protection or other processes go through, they work on the basis that such orders are in place and could possibly be used. I am coming to the end—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

No—I think that you are at the end.

Fulton MacGregor

I will leave it at that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr MacGregor.

Finlay Carson (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcements, but we on these benches are not alone in holding serious concerns about the bill. Scottish Land & Estates stated that it has

“a major concern with the government’s current proposals”

and that the bill is

“poorly structured in contrast to the Forestry Act 1967”.

Bidwells has highlighted its

“disquiet over the proposals to strengthen and broaden Scottish Ministers powers of Compulsory Purchase”.

The Institute of Chartered Foresters

“considers that significant amendments are required”.

NFU Scotland highlights the bill’s potential for

“undermining relations between farming and forestry.”

Furthermore, the Community Woodlands Association seeks greater clarity about a number of definitions in the bill. I am glad that I find myself in the company of many reputable and knowledgeable stakeholders in highlighting my concerns about the bill in its current form.

There are two areas of significant concern: the lack of clarity on key definitions, and the expansion of compulsory purchase powers. The “Oxford English Dictionary” defines clarity as

“the quality of being clear and intelligible”.

The bill fails to provide a clear and intelligible definition of “forestry land”, “sustainable forest management”, “sustainable development” and “community body”. Once again, legislation that lacks clarity has been introduced to the Parliament. We witnessed that during stage 1 of the Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Bill, in which vague definitions were applied to “wild animals” and “travelling circus”.

During an evidence session in the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s meeting on 7 June, the Scottish Government’s forestry and land management bill team could not provide reassurance about how compulsory purchase could further the achievement of sustainable development.

Key definitions within the bill have worryingly been left to the discretion of ministerial interpretation. In order to provide the transparency and confidence that the forestry sector requires, ministers must ensure that these definitions are given further clarity if the bill is to move forward to the next stage. I am glad that the cabinet secretary, in his letter to the committee convener, Edward Mountain, has indicated that he will review certain measures in the bill regarding vague and unclear definitions.

I believe that an expansion of the existing compulsory purchase powers is not required. The current powers found in the Forestry Act 1967 have not scarcely been used—they have never been used by the Scottish ministers. A further enhancement of those powers would only reaffirm the mantra of this SNP Government and see further unnecessary centralisation of power.

The use of compulsory purchase powers has also been raised recently in the discussion paper published by the Scottish Law Commission, which noted the

“peculiarly disturbing circumstances of losing ... property under a statutory process”

and went further to state that

“It is of the highest importance that, as it affects ordinary people, the legislation should be as clear as possible.”

Stakeholders are also concerned about the use of compulsory purchase. NFU Scotland is

“sceptical that two of the fundamental principles of valuations for compulsory purchase ... are being consistently and rigorously applied”.

Those principles are that

“the seller and purchaser are both ‘willing’ and that the seller is ‘no better or worse off’”.

We have seen this happen already, through what some people see as the mishandling of the compulsory purchase orders along the Aberdeen western peripheral route.

I therefore believe that the compulsory purchase powers under this bill are at best unnecessary and at worst a power grab by the Government.

I welcome some aspects of the bill, namely a routine review of the forestry strategy and the strengthening of provisions related to tree health, which I believe will be beneficial to my constituency of Galloway and West Dumfries where, as everybody knows, we are campaigning to establish Scotland’s next national park, which would take in the whole of Galloway forest park. However, in order for the bill to provide for the action it seeks, fundamental changes must be made to its current form.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate legislation that will have a major impact on an important sector within my South Scotland region.

As we have already heard, forestry plays an invaluable role in many aspects of Scottish life, contributing to climate change mitigation, biodiversity, flood management, health and wellbeing and of course tourism. It is estimated that the sector supports around 25,000 full-time-equivalent jobs across Scotland, and £954 million of gross value added. It is particularly important to rural economies.

My own home region of Dumfries and Galloway has one of the highest concentrations of forestry in the country, with woods and forests covering some 31 per cent of the land. The 211,000 hectares range from the great spruce forests of Galloway and Eskdalemuir, through the traditional estate forests such as those of Buccleuch Estates, to the small native and farm woodlands that are so important to the beautiful landscape of Dumfries and Galloway. Not surprisingly, the region is a major timber-producing area, harvesting some 30 per cent of Scotland’s home-grown timber each year, and is home to Scotland’s largest biomass power station.

The timber industry is responsible for more than 3,000 jobs in Dumfries and Galloway, many of which are in remote rural areas. It is therefore an economic and environmental imperative that the bill adequately supports the forestry sector and the associated industries.

I am happy to support the general principles of the bill and I welcome its broad aims. In addition to the need to fully devolve forestry powers, I support the need to promote accountability, transparency and policy alignment in this area. Likewise, any endeavours to modernise the sector and improve the effectiveness of how we use Scotland’s publicly owned land are very welcome.

However, there is more to be done to ensure that the bill fully supports those aims, and I commend the work done by both the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee in scrutinising the bill.

It is important to acknowledge that many aspects of forestry interrelate closely with other policy areas and I hope that the Government will accept the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s call for the development of an

“overarching, high-level statement of ambition, on the face of the bill, that makes clear that modern forestry strategy and practices will reflect an integrated approach to land use, community interests and the environment”.

I appreciate the need for the full devolution of forestry matters, but it is important that the existing engagement between stakeholders from communities and local authorities is not compromised in the process. Bringing the management of the forestry estate into the Scottish Government’s remit risks the potential for overcentralisation, which has been a habit of Government in recent years, and we must be careful to guard against that. Local forest districts and their outreach functions play a crucial role, and it is vital that the new structure reflects that. In Dumfries and Galloway, the estate is governed by two forest districts—Galloway district and Dumfries and Borders district—that, between them, cover 171,000 hectares.

In addition to the production role, the current arrangements have played a crucial part in developing the wider health and recreational benefits of forests in the area, from the development of the seven stanes cycling project to the Scottish dark sky observatory in Galloway forest park, which, I hope, will become the Galloway national park in time. It is vital that we maintain the role that is carried out by forest districts in any new structures.

The bill will also bring into force the proposed restructuring of the Forestry Commission but, as they stand, the plans have failed to win support. In its report, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee noted

“wide-ranging concerns expressed by stakeholders at the separation of the functions of the Forestry Commission”.

In particular, I highlight concerns that the scope, focus and resources of the forestry division might be diluted over time, and that the separation of the division and the commission might result in a loss of professional forestry expertise. The bill and the discussions around it provide an opportunity to examine the issues and to work to address concerns on the matter.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s announcement that it will produce a statement setting out how it will manage and administer its forestry responsibilities and the relationship between the forestry division and the agency. It is essential that the statement provides assurances on those issues and clarifies what will be done to ensure that the separation of the commission’s functions will not weaken the total capacity of the two organisations. I am glad that the Scottish Government is considering the committee’s recommendation that significant changes to the arrangements that are set out in the statement must be notified to the Parliament and be subject to further consideration.

The introduction of a statutory requirement for a Scottish Government forestry strategy that is based on sustainable forest management is a welcome change, and I am glad that the Scottish Government has agreed to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s recommendation that a working definition of the term “sustainable forest management” is given to provide clarity on what exactly is expected. I also welcome calls to include a statutory process to ensure that regular revision and review of the forestry strategy is undertaken. I appreciate that there is a balance to be struck between providing flexibility and certainty, but the committee’s recommendation for the strategy to be reviewed every five years and refreshed every 10 years is a reasonable one.

Another key concern that was raised in submissions to the committee was on the topic of devolution and its impact on research capabilities and scientific expertise. The south of Scotland regional forestry forum highlighted that issue, stating:

“It is essential that Britain’s current forest research capability is not lost, and that discussions on a cross-border approach to Forest Research reach a successful conclusion.”

Likewise, the National Trust for Scotland asked for clarification on how cross-border co-operation will develop, and the committee’s report noted the widespread view that

“the research functions of the current UK wide Forestry Commission are crucial to the continuing health of Scotland's forests.”

That is a crucial point to take into consideration during the devolution process.

I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to provide regular updates on the progress of its discussions with the rest of the UK on the issue, and I am glad that it has recognised the importance of ensuring that an appropriate framework for cross-border research is in place before the bill comes into force. However, there is still a lack of clarity on the purpose of the compulsory purchase powers that are conferred by the bill, and on the provision that relates to sustainable development. The current widespread lack of confidence in that aspect of the bill must be addressed if the Scottish Government is to take forward that particular provision, no matter the support that exists.

The full devolution of forestry powers is a valuable opportunity to improve our approach to the sector, which is of great importance to thousands of my constituents. There is significant scope for progress and, for that reason, I am happy to support the general principles of the bill. However, as it stands, it requires work to be done before it is fit for purpose and I am glad that the Scottish Government has already agreed to a number of the committee’s recommendations. I urge the Scottish Government to give further consideration to the other points that have been raised in the chamber and by stakeholders around Scotland.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind all parties in the chamber that no front bench should ever be left empty during a debate. I ask all parties to take note of that for future reference.

Angus MacDonald (Falkirk East) (SNP)

Following on from the successful transfer of the Crown estate to Crown Estate Scotland, with Scottish ministers now responsible for all Crown estate assets in Scotland and all revenue profit going to the Scottish Government, this bill now makes forestry fully accountable to Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament. It has always struck me that not having forestry matters fully devolved to Scotland was messy, to say the least, so I am glad to see the situation being tidied up, albeit with continuing cross-border working on tree health and other matters. There is no doubt that a strong forestry sector, worth £1 billion annually, as we have heard, is important to a vibrant Scotland, and it is also vital that forestry in Scotland is fully accountable to this Parliament.

I hope to cover three main strands in my speech today: woodland deer management; sustainable forest management; and biodiversity.

We know from the work that was done on deer management by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee and the work that has been done by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee since its formation last year that there are too many deer in Scotland. According to the Scottish Wildlife Trust—I thank it for the briefing that it provided in advance of today’s debate—there are an estimated 85,000 to 100,000 roe, sika and fallow deer in privately owned Scottish forests, and 40,000 to 45,000 on the national forest estate; and between 45,000 and 60,000 red deer in private forests, and 40,000 and 45,000 on the national forest estate.

We also know that 30 per cent of all deer culling in Scotland has been carried out by the Forestry Commission or Forest Enterprise Scotland in the national forest estate, which, unbelievably, costs the taxpayer more than £3 million a year—that does not include the cost of deer fences, which is another story. That is clearly disproportionate, given that the national forest estate covers only 6 per cent of the land area. The creation of new woodland, which the bill will enable, will also create new deer habitats. It should therefore go without saying that it is surely the responsibility of all owners and managers of private forests and woodland to manage the deer that live on their patch—as Fulton MacGregor and John Finnie said, that includes culling.

Edward Mountain

Part of the application process for new woodland grant schemes concerns deer management, which has to be considered. Surely what the member asks for is already happening and the issue is simply one of implementation. Does he agree?

Angus MacDonald

Implementation is key, absolutely.

As I have suggested, such action would clearly help the timber crop, improve woodland biodiversity, significantly reduce the impact of deer grazing on nearby agricultural crops and, of course, reduce the risk of road traffic collisions with deer, which some of us have experienced.

Given the unexpected knowledge that I have gained on the issue of deer management through serving on the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee in the previous session of Parliament for four years and through my membership of the current Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, I have a lot of sympathy for, and fully understand, the Scottish Wildlife Trust’s call for there to be a legal requirement for forest owners to take adequate and appropriate steps to manage and control deer. I suggest that there is a strong argument for the SWT’s assertion that the bill should be amended to incorporate a duty of sustainable deer management for all forest owners. Having a plan in place to manage deer would clearly reduce the damaging impacts that deer can have and would create economic opportunities through the letting of deer stalking and the resultant venison sales. That would tie in well with the recommendations in the 2016 report on deer management by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee.

Turning to biodiversity and sustainable forest management, I am pleased to note that, although the bill does not define sustainable forest management, the policy memorandum uses the widely accepted definition from the 1993 pan-European ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe. However, I understand that the Government has accepted the committee’s recommendation that, for as long as sustainable forest management is the goal, the accepted definition should be included in the forestry strategy, which is welcomed. The definition fits well with the requirement for Scottish ministers to set out their objectives, priorities and policies with respect to the promotion of sustainable forest management.

On the issue of compulsory purchase order powers being extended to include sustainable development, I am pleased that the cabinet secretary indicated in his opening remarks that he is in listening mode. However, my family was subjected to CPOs in the past and I can testify to the fact that, whether we like CPOs or not, the threat of them helps to concentrate minds—I have experience of that.

Biodiversity must remain on the radar of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. I note in the RSPB’s briefing the request that biodiversity be given more distinct recognition in the bill, in addition to other environmental considerations such as flood water management and carbon sequestration. The RSPB also suggests that the bill be amended to include a duty to develop a statutory method of assessing sustainable forest management, which seems to me to be a reasonable request. I look forward to possible consideration of that at stage 2 and stage 3.

The creation of this bill redefines forestry in Scotland for the 21st century, ensuring the Iong-term economic and environmental sustainability of a vital industry. I welcome the devolution of forestry to Scottish ministers and the fact that forestry will be fully accountable to this Parliament. In my view, that is long overdue, but it is another step in the right direction.

Tom Mason (North East Scotland) (Con)

Scotland’s land and forests are vitally important resources for many in our country. For example, I have observed Assich forest near Nairn, where the developer has done one cycle, if not a second. There are those who find it not sustainable, but I understand from foresters that it is the only sustainable forest in Scotland. It is incumbent on us to be responsible in how we legislate for our land and forests, focusing on putting in place best practice to benefit Scotland as a whole.

The forestry sector alone is worth almost £1 billion per year to the economy, supporting more than 26,000 jobs and, of course, the families who rely on them. However, it is also important to consider environmental concerns. Continued afforestation is of undoubted relevance when trying to limit levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, the bill bears a number of similarities with many that have come before the Parliament—not least the Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Bill—in that, although well intentioned for the most part, it is poorly written and vague to the extent that its fundamental aims lack substantive clarity.

I have read the cabinet secretary’s letter to Edward Mountain. Given that the cabinet secretary had the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s recommendations for almost a month, it is regrettable that his response snuck out on the Friday afternoon before this debate—I missed it because I was occupied over the weekend.

The cabinet secretary has said that he might consider some amendments to the bill, but I believe that the Government should have been much clearer, much sooner. An example of that can be seen in the definition of “sustainable forest management”, which should be simple. However, the Scottish Government did not even think to define the term in its key forestry bill, which meant that concessions were forced from the cabinet secretary before the bill even made it to stage 1. It is important that we have strict definitions when ministers wish to grant themselves sweeping new powers to adjudicate on the matters concerned, otherwise we risk a situation in which the Government can hide poor performance and implementation behind vague terms of reference, which would simply not be good enough. I urge ministers to consider amendments in that area.

With that in mind, I have real concerns over the expansion of compulsory purchase powers that the bill would give ministers, which has been mentioned often in the debate. For example, it was not long ago that the SNP was cheering on such orders to facilitate Donald Trump’s Balmedie vanity project. That did not exactly go well. In addition, the Scottish Government is totally inexperienced in making compulsory purchases for the purpose of sustainable development. There are currently no examples of Scottish ministers using the powers of compulsory purchase in the context of forestry. Of course, they will probably need to figure out what it all means first.

Stewart Stevenson

For clarity, the Scottish Government and local authorities are very experienced in making compulsory purchase orders in general and I cannot imagine that the purpose being for sustainable development will make the process different in any material way.

Tom Mason

All situations have their own competence. If ministers do not have experience in the forestry context, they will not be competent to make those orders. I recommend that ministers think again about whether those provisions are really necessary.

I am worried about the requirement for a totally new IT system. Rural Scotland is still paying for the Scottish Government’s incompetence in that area, although I suspect that the cabinet secretary hoped that we had all forgotten about that.

I share the concerns that my Conservative colleagues have raised on the defining of a community body, and the proposals in section 17 on the sale, lease or gift of land to anyone whom ministers see fit. The cabinet secretary has agreed to explore the need for potential amendments, and it would be a serious error of judgment were that to fall by the wayside. We would prefer to see any funds that were raised from the sale of forestry land being reinvested in continuous afforestation rather than grants, and I hope the Scottish Government will take that on board.

The bill will have profound effects on our rural economy, but its drafting is simply not up to the required level. The bill also fails to strike the correct balance in many areas. It goes too far with compulsory purchase powers and IT systems, but not far enough when it comes to reinvesting in afforestation for the future.

There is much still to do with the bill, and I hope that ministers will take on board my legitimate concerns and not remain blinkered in their approach to rural Scotland. Although I support the bill in general terms, we ask that our proposed amendments be allowed to go through.

David Stewart (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

In 1918, in the dying days of the first world war, the country was ravaged by conflict, our young people had been sacrificed on the battlefield, and our economy was in freefall. That was the context in which the Forestry Commission was born, with the aim of replanting, rebuilding and renewing a crucial asset that appeared impossible to replace. The idea seemed to be oxymoronic. How could we replace native Caledonian pine forests that were hundreds of years old? However, in the 1920s and 1930s, those foresters of old did what it said on the tin: they replanted our forests with fast-growing and mainly, though not exclusively, non-native species.

As we all know, the picture today is very different. Our living forests play a number of roles in climate change mitigation, industry and construction, job creation, biomass, housing, leisure and biodiversity. That is why today’s debate is so important.

The bill includes devolving forestry to Scottish ministers, and it is my hope that that will offer the opportunity to better integrate forestry with other rural land uses in Scotland. We must recognise the important economic benefits from forestry. Rural areas are often the most vulnerable, and as a Highlands and Islands MSP, that is very close to my heart.

However, forestry offers us so much more. It provides leisure spaces, carbon sequestration, flood mitigation, erosion reduction, water quality improvement, timber production and a biodiverse habitat for many of our native species. Many of our native woodlands provide a home for at-risk species in Scotland, whose population has been in decline, so it is not just the area of forestry that we need to improve, but the quality. Increased tree planting for the sake of it is not enough. It must be done in the right area, and with the right tree species, or it could do more harm than good. In its excellent briefing, the RSPB makes the point that biodiversity and environmental benefits are not always fully interlinked, and that they must be kept separate in order to support both. That is true for rural and urban areas. The word “forestry” brings to mind acres and acres of trees, but it also covers tree planting in urban areas, which is very important for increasing green spaces, which can help with the mental and physical health of local communities.

The powers are moving to Scottish ministers, but it is vital that the skills and the knowledge of Forestry Commission Scotland staff are maintained. The very nature of forestry involves long-term planning—many of our man-made ancient forests exist only because of the forward thinking of our forebears. As the Greek proverb goes:

“A society grows great when old men”—

and women—

“plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.”

This has been an excellent debate, started by the cabinet secretary, who stressed the importance of sustainable management in forests, with new commissioning and funding across the UK to expand timber supply. I, too, welcome the strategic timber fund. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will say a bit more about that in his winding-up speech. If I picked him up correctly, I understand that the plan is to transfer a further 700 acres to community ownership this year.

Edward Mountain made an excellent speech as the convener of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. He talked, quite rightly, about keeping—and increasing—the skills of foresters; he also talked about having a long-term strategy with objectives that are reviewed. I also agree with his points about the need for more clarity on the definitions.

A common theme among members was the need to get the IT systems right. How many times in this Parliament have we touched on a new IT system that has failed? Let us get it right in this instance.

Peter Chapman made a number of points with which I agree. For example, an amendment to the bill about the cross-border work on tree health is vital, and a review of progress on planting expansion timescales must be reported to Parliament at an appropriate stage.

Rhoda Grant set the context of the devolution of the Forestry Commission. A common theme in the debate has been the creation of the important role of the chief forester, who will effectively fight the corner of foresters within the Scottish Government. As Rhoda Grant said, it is crucial to look at the socioeconomic role of forestry and the needs of local communities.

As always, Stewart Stevenson was entertaining. He talked about his time fighting the first world war—or maybe I misunderstood that. He certainly talked about the important role that timber played in the first world war. He made the interesting point that he counts as one and a half members within the SNP group—nobody in the Parliament has ever doubted his important role.

John Scott—quite rightly—raised the need for clarity on the definitions, particularly the definition of community bodies.

Overall, this has been a first-class debate. We know the big picture—the forestry industry needs stability to allow it to invest and to grow to ensure that it thrives for future generations. It also needs knowledge. I restate my earlier point: although civil servants are specialists in what they do, it is important that the knowledge held by foresters within the commission is not lost. On behalf of the five trade unions that represent Forestry Commission Scotland, I would appreciate it if the cabinet secretary could assure me that the skills of the staff will be maintained and that the unions representing them will be fully engaged during the negotiations about all aspects of the staff transfer.

Labour’s position is clear: we support the general principles of the bill. I urge all members to support it.

Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)

I welcome the opportunity to close the debate for my party. As a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, and as an MSP who represents a region that contains valuable public forestry, especially on the Isle of Arran, I have a vested interest in getting a successful outcome for the bill. From listening to today’s speeches, it is clear that there is still work to be done as the bill progresses through Parliament.

The committee recommendations include a number of pertinent points, including the need for the Scottish Government to provide clarity on how it will administer its forestry functions. Conservative members support the proposal to create the position of chief forester.

The committee also recommended that the bill should have an overarching aim, objective or mission statement. What should the bill seek to achieve? What long-term outcome should result from the reorganisation?

The committee recommended that the costs of rebranding be minimised where possible. It also suggested that the financial reporting and auditing functions that are available to Parliament in respect of the current bodies be carried forward to the new structure. Transparency must prevail, scrutiny must be forthcoming and accountability must not be diluted as a result of the integration.

My colleague Peter Chapman noted the importance of working with other parts of the UK to ensure the health of our trees. He also said that the wealth of expertise in the Forestry Commission should not be lost as the bill is implemented. David Stewart reiterated that point. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comment that cross-border co-operation will continue in a formal setting. Conservative members welcome the constructive approach that all Governments are taking to the issue.

Peter Chapman also made a pertinent point about our ability to meet planting targets, which have been missed every year since 2001. If we are to meet the targets, we must have an honest and frank debate about the planning process and the costs of planting.

In his speech, my colleague Finlay Carson highlighted two areas of concern about which many other members spoke: the lack of clarity in key definitions, and the expansion of compulsory purchase powers. I hope that the Government will take into account the constructive comments of the committee and individual members about the definitions, and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to listen to the concerns about additional compulsory purchase powers. Rhoda Grant made an interesting point about scenarios in which compulsory purchase powers might be required, but our understanding is that the Government already has sufficient compulsory purchase powers, which we are happy to have rolled forward from the Forestry Act 1967. The ambiguities in, and concerns about, the provisions on purchase for sustainable development must be taken into account. By a majority, the committee agreed that no case has been made for additional powers, as Mike Rumbles said.

My colleague John Scott warned against Parliament producing poorly drafted legislation. I value his experience in scrutinising bills, and I agree with the sentiment of his speech. He thanked the Forestry Commission Scotland for its hard work to date: I am sure that all members would do the same.

To our huge surprise, Stewart Stevenson delivered a fascinating insight into the history of forestry in Scotland. We were also reminded of his previous ministerial importance in the matter—indeed, in any matter. We learned today that he is worth 1.5 normal MSPs. We are forever grateful for his enlightening—and inflated—presence in Parliament. [Laughter.] Mr Stevenson also made an interesting point about the structure of Holyrood committees. My experience of the committees in the Scottish Parliament has been overwhelmingly positive.

John Finnie made an interesting point about the needs of small businesses in the forestry sector, especially those that derive social benefit from Scotland’s forests. He was seeking confirmation that grants to such bodies will be protected, so it was good to hear the cabinet secretary provide that confirmation.

My committee colleague Gail Ross talked about the huge amount of scrutiny that has been done of the bill at stage 1. I thank the many stakeholders who provided fascinating evidence, which is testament to the scrutiny that the Scottish Parliament is giving to a bill that will lead to the disappearance of a well-respected body from Scotland’s rural landscape.

It is unfortunate that the debate has not been entirely consensual. Another Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee colleague, John Mason, painted a quite unwarranted picture of the committee’s make-up. His comments were uncharacteristic of him. To my knowledge, no member of the committee has a declared interest in forestry, and every member of the committee has approached the bill with nothing but good will and good intent. To suggest otherwise is quite churlish, so I hope that John Mason will reflect on his comments.

Colin Smyth made a valuable point about the creation of a new national park in the south of Scotland. The debate about that will no doubt continue outside the debate about the bill.

Angus MacDonald touched on the importance of deer management—a matter about which we have talked in great detail in Parliament. He made the point that as we create new woodland—it is right to do so—we might increase the deer population. That, too, is perhaps a debate for another day.

I ask the cabinet secretary to reflect on the following points. Let us address the definitions issue and produce a bill that is watertight and lacks ambiguity. Let us heed the majority recommendation to exclude compulsory purchase powers from the bill, and let us take on board the committee’s suggestion about the position of chief forester.

Let us also remember that the Forestry Commission’s success in Scotland to date has had much to do with its neutrality and its expertise, which we would hate to be lost as the changes are implemented. The Forestry Commission Scotland brand is a strong one, so I implore the cabinet secretary to ascertain whether the UK body will allow the brand to continue under licence in Scotland.

With billions of pounds of gross value at stake, and given the environmental and social benefits that Scotland’s forests bring, it is vital that the concerns that have been expressed today be taken on board as we progress to stage 2.

Fergus Ewing

I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate, which has included excellent contributions by members from across the chamber, and has been largely consensual, as Jamie Greene just said.

Reference has been made to Stewart Stevenson’s contribution. Roald Dahl wrote the series “Tales of the Unexpected”: I often think that Mr Stevenson’s speeches are the parliamentary equivalent of those excellent fictional works. Today’s episode—which was somewhat extended, I thought—concerned the Great Michael. I had thought that he might be taking the Michael, but it was just about the making of the Michael. There was a point in there, as always—the huge importance of forestry to Scotland throughout a number of centuries, and not just of late.

Before I go on to answer as many key points as possible, I want to say that I cannot answer them all, but I am committed to, and would like to take part in, bilateral meetings with representatives of each of the other parties, if they wish, in order to see whether we can make progress prior to stage 2. I find that to be a good way to work with colleagues, so my door is open to them to take up that offer quickly, if they wish to do so. I hope that stage 2 can be a collaborative exercise and that we will work together to improve the bill. I accept that there is scope for improvement, although the bill is substantially sound.

I will start with organisational structures, which Rhoda Grant and many other members raised. The new structures will preserve the current distinction between the Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland. As Gail Ross pointed out, FCS will become a dedicated forestry division that will be responsible for grants, regulation, and support and development. Forest Enterprise Scotland, which is already an agency, will become forestry and land Scotland, which will be an executive agency of Scottish ministers, and will be responsible primarily for management of Scotland’s national forest estate.

David Stewart and Rhoda Grant mentioned the importance of the staff, as did members in the Conservative ranks. They are absolutely right. One of my pleasures over the summer was to visit all the conservancies in Scotland with senior representatives of the Forestry Commission, including Scotland’s forestry commissioner Jo O’Hara, who is here listening to the debate. That allowed me to see at first hand just how dedicated the staff are, and how they regard it as not just a job but a calling. I hope that I was able to provide assurance on and clarification of what we all want from the bill, which is greater accountability and transparency and greater focus on forestry than has been possible while accountability has been so diffuse.

In response to Mr Stewart and Ms Grant, in particular, I am happy to confirm that the staff’s expertise will not be lost. The staff transfer to the Scottish Government will maintain the strong public sector role in forestry policy and delivery. We will minimise disruption to staff and we will help to ensure business continuity. I have had numerous lengthy meetings with trade union representatives, which have been extremely productive. The “Cabinet Office Statement of Practice: Staff transfers in the Public Sector”, which is known as COSOP, applies when staff are transferred between civil service departments. I mention it because it is important to stress how much we value the Forestry Commission and Forest Enterprise staff and the work that they do.

We need to increase the pace and scale of tree planting in order to meet our ambitious annual planting targets, towards which we are making good progress. In response to Mr Chapman—I am sorry, it might have been Mr Mountain—I say about the speed and protracted process to obtain permissions that we have addressed that by asking the former chief planner for Scotland, Jim Mackinnon, to look at the whole process because he is an expert in that area. He came up with 21 recommendations, which we have accepted and which will nearly all have been implemented by the end of this year. There has been substantial buy-in to the process that he set out. That progress has been welcomed. Stuart Goodall said:

“I am heartened to see pragmatic, workable proposals to ensure we finally achieve the tree planting rates necessary to deliver the sector’s full potential”.

In the past year, Scotland has been responsible for 70 per cent of new tree planting in the UK, so although it is fair to point out—as members have done—that we have not yet reached our target, I am confident that we will do so fairly soon. I know that because of the level of activity in nurseries, which have massively increased their stock with a view to achieving greater sales. Forestry is a long-term business in which people plan well ahead, and I know from my visits to Christie-Elite Nurseries Ltd and Alba Trees plc nurseries that they are planning for that future. We value their contribution thereanent.

Forest Enterprise Scotland is a very successful commercial organisation; in 2016, its income amounted to £85 million. As well as selling timber, it sells venison and receives a substantial income from renewable energy developments. The substantial income that it derives from the portfolio that it has built up enables it to supplement its commercial activities. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Excuse me, cabinet secretary. Could we have a bit of quiet in the Conservatives’ part of the chamber, please? I ask everyone who is coming in to be aware that the debate is still going on.

Fergus Ewing

Thank you for resuming order, Presiding Officer—not that I had done anything to provoke disorder, but there we are.

We will certainly consider the compulsory purchase powers at stage 2. I am considering carefully the comments that we have received from stakeholders and what members have said today. The point has been made by various members, including Angus MacDonald, that it is not necessary to use the power to prove that it is necessary—in other words, it is wrong to infer that, because the power has not been used since 1967, which is 50 years ago, it is not necessary. It is a backstop, so I caution that having a power of last resort can be valuable in bringing negotiations to a conclusion, even if the power is never used.

Mike Rumbles

Will the minister take an intervention?

Fergus Ewing

I am very sorry, but I do not think that I have time to do so. I would be happy to meet Mr Rumbles to have a lengthy discussion with him on the matter, if he so wishes.

Mike Rumbles

I look forward to that.

Peter Chapman

Good luck with that.

Fergus Ewing

I take on any task, no matter how challenging.

Edward Mountain

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention from me?

Fergus Ewing

I think that I should be fair and act on the basis of equal opportunities: in other words, I will not take any interventions. I am very sorry—it is not personal. However, I would be happy to meet Mr Mountain. I am taking on many challenging tasks, Presiding Officer.

The IT system was mentioned. I stress that it needs to be replaced anyway. We have confirmed that the cost of doing that will not exceed the upper estimate in the financial memorandum. I will, of course, update members as soon as further information is available. In addition, rebranding costs will be kept to a minimum. That is the approach that I am taking, and I am delighted to hear that it is one that members support.

Definitions have occupied quite a lot of time in the debate. I do not doubt that they are important, but I point out to members that the phrase “sustainable development” is generally well understood and widely used in legislation. In fact, it was no less a figure than the then Lord President, Lord Gill, who said in his judgment in the case of Pairc Crofters v the Scottish Ministers:

“In my view, the expression sustainable development is in common parlance in matters relating to the use and development of land. It is an expression that would be readily understood by the legislators, the Ministers and the Land Court.”

Therefore, the difficulties are perhaps not as acute as some members have suggested, but I am happy to undertake to give the matter further consideration.

Many references have been made to timber transport on rural roads—David Stewart referred to it—and by sea. As John Finnie mentioned, timber is taken by sea from a large number of places around the country, and that is a good thing. Rail freight, where there are opportunities for it, is an equally important matter to which we are paying close attention.

In conclusion, I say that David Stewart’s speech was excellent. In it, he set out the historic context of what we are doing. The Forestry Commission is 98 years old. Lord Lovat, who was from the Highlands, was its first chair. He was an extremely distinguished man in many ways, and is regarded as the father of the Forestry Commission. I know that because over the summer I read the history of the Forestry Commission in Scotland. That has just reminded me that I had better give that book back to Jo O’Hara. She should remind me to give her her book back, because I have finished it.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is consideration of motion S5M-07872, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the financial resolution on the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill, agrees to—

(a) any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9.12.3(b) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act, and

(b) any charge or payment in relation to which Rule 9.12.4 of the Standing Orders applies arising in consequence of the Act.—[Derek Mackay]

The Presiding Officer

The question on the motion will be put at decision time.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

We come to decision time. The first question is, that motion S5M-08677, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on stage 1 of the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill.

The Presiding Officer

The next question is, that motion S5M-07872, in the name of Derek Mackay, on the financial resolution on the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill, agrees to—

(a) any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9.12.3(b) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act, and

(b) any charge or payment in relation to which Rule 9.12.4 of the Standing Orders applies arising in consequence of the Act.

The Presiding Officer

The final question is, that motion S5M-08738, in the name of Joe FitzPatrick, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on committee membership, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the following changes to committee membership apply from close of business on Tuesday 7 November 2017—

Emma Harper be appointed to replace Maree Todd as a member of the Finance and Constitution Committee;

Kate Forbes be appointed to replace Emma Harper as a member of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.

The Convener (Edward Mountain)

Welcome to the committee’s 35th meeting in 2017. I ask everyone to make sure that mobile phones are on silent.

Agenda item 1 is stage 2 consideration of the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill. I welcome Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity, and his officials from the Scottish Government.

Everyone should have a copy of the bill as introduced, the marshalled list of amendments that was published on Thursday and the groupings of amendments, which set out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated. The clerks have advised me that amendment 136 appears in the wrong place on the marshalled list and should, in fact, be after amendment 114. We will take it at that place in the proceedings. That change does not affect the groupings.

It may be helpful to explain the procedure. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. I will then call any other members who have lodged amendments in that group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate that by catching my attention in the usual way. If he has not already spoken on the group, I will invite the cabinet secretary to contribute to the debate just before I move to the winding-up speech. The debate on the group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up.

Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on that amendment. If the member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the agreement of other members to do so. If any member present objects, the committee will immediately move to the vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say, “Not moved.” Please note that any other member present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshalled list.

Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section and schedule of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. We aim to complete stage 2 today, but we will see how we get on.

Section 1 agreed to.

After section 1

The Convener

Group 1 is on the purpose of the bill. Amendment 14, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is the only amendment in the group.

Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

Amendment 14 would introduce a purpose section to the bill. The intention is to add clarity about the purpose of the bill. We all know that the bill came about because of the devolution of the Forestry Commission, which is welcome, but we must have more ambition for forestry than just that. The amendment shows that ambition and what our focus should be: to promote sustainable management of forestry and promote the social, economic and environmental impacts of forestry. The new section would state clearly at the beginning of the bill the purpose of the bill and the benefits that forestry can bring.

I move amendment 14.

Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)

The only comment that Conservatives have to make is that, in principle, we agree with Rhoda Grant’s suggestion that there should be an overarching purpose to the bill. The problem is that we are unable to support the specific wording of amendment 14, which we feel is not sufficiently encompassing and is too prescriptive in its definition of the bill’s purpose. We would like to see a purpose set out, but I will be voting against the specific wording in the amendment. We would like to see the cabinet secretary take on board whether the bill’s purpose could be introduced with wider wording.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

My view is very much on the same lines as Jamie Greene’s. A purpose section for a bill is an extremely good thing. The Parliament was set up with the statement:

“There shall be a Scottish Parliament.”

Such a section clarifies things and helps the courts to look at the spirit, rather than just the letter, of the law. However, like Jamie Greene, I have reservations about the wording of this particular purpose section.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Alas and alack, if we put the section in, it will be the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. Its effect is to restrict the scope of the bill, rather than to extend it, because, by putting a purpose in, the whole bill is defined by that purpose and nothing that is not defined in it. Therefore, I am afraid that, notwithstanding my sympathies with the underlying approach that Rhoda Grant is taking, I cannot support amendment 14.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

I support amendment 14. Everything is open to interpretation. There is clarity about what has been said there, and the section is a worthwhile addition to the legislation that is in front of us.

The Convener

Cabinet secretary, before I ask Rhoda Grant to wind up, are there any comments that you would like to make on the amendment?

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity (Fergus Ewing)

Good morning, convener and members of the committee.

At the outset, I would like to thank members of all parties for the constructive meetings that I had prior to stage 2. My officials found them useful; I hope that members did as well. I want to make it clear that, between stages 2 and 3, I will follow the same process and offer a further series of meetings with members, with the aim of working together to ensure that the legislation is in the best possible state. Today, at various points, I will offer to take away important issues that have been raised by members, with an undertaking to work with them to improve matters and to come back at stage 3. I want to emphasise at the beginning of the meeting that that is my approach.

To turn to Rhoda Grant’s amendment, I share its ambitions for the forestry sector in Scotland. The Government has an unequivocal commitment to forestry, which I hope and believe is not in doubt. We have introduced the first primary legislation on forestry since the Parliament was reconvened in 1999. The bill has a purpose: it is the main legislative vehicle to complete devolution of forestry and to establish modern arrangements for this key land use in Scottish legislation. It fulfils a long-standing Scottish Government manifesto and programme for government commitment. Therefore the purpose goes beyond sustainable forestry management; it is also about devolution, which is not stated in amendment 14. The bill provides a modern legislative framework for regulation, support, development and management of forestry in Scotland. It also embeds sustainable forestry management across that framework, introducing, in section 2, a duty on the Scottish ministers to promote sustainable forestry management and to publish a forestry strategy with sustainable forestry management at its core.

The internationally agreed definition of sustainable forestry management is:

“the stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfil, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions, at local, national, and global levels, and does not cause damage to other ecosystems”.

Given the importance of that phrase, I thought it useful to put that definition on the record early in stage 2. It is about good management of forestry for the long term and for multiple benefits at all levels, which is why it is already at the heart of the forestry functions in the bill.

I question the use of the word “impacts” in amendment 14. I do not support amendment 14, but were I to do so, I would think that “positive impact” or “benefit” would be better alternatives to “impacts”, which has potentially negative connotations.

I share and indeed applaud the sentiments of Rhoda Grant and John Finnie, but I respectfully suggest that amendment 14 is technically flawed, would not achieve the aims that it sets out to achieve and risks causing difficulties, as Mr Stevenson said. For those reasons, I encourage members not to agree to amendment 14.

Rhoda Grant

It is important to have a purpose section in the bill. An awful lot of the amendments that we will consider later were lodged because there is no such section; they are trying to frame the bill in a way that people can understand and use. I firmly believe that the bill requires a purpose section.

I heard what members said about the wording, so I will not press amendment 14 at this stage. However, I will take the issue away and speak to other parties and members, in an attempt to find wording that would help. I understand that the cabinet secretary is not keen on having a purpose section—full stop—so I do not expect to work with him on that, but I would appreciate input if he has concerns, and I will share any proposed new amendment with him, in the hope of getting things right at stage 3.

Amendment 14, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 2—Duty to promote sustainable forest management

The Convener

Group 2 is on a sustainable forest management code of practice. Amendment 118, in the name of Gail Ross, is grouped with amendment 119.

Gail Ross (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)

The purpose of amendments 118 and 119 is to include in the bill a duty to develop a statutory method of assessing and monitoring sustainable forest management, by adopting the best practice forestry guidelines that are set out in the UK forestry standard as legislative requirements.

The UK forestry standard is far reaching and a good representation of best practice, but it is not currently embedded in legislation. The adoption of a code of practice would ensure that future afforestation is transparent and that its environmental benefits are clear and in the public interest. It would also protect against the risk of changing policy environments, which might not place sustainability in such high regard.

I am open to discussion about the approach, including a discussion about whether the bill or the forestry strategy is the correct place for the code of practice.

I move amendment 118.

Jamie Greene

There are admirable intentions behind amendments 118 and 119. There is certainly a shared opinion that section 2 is quite light on detail about the duties on the Scottish ministers to promote sustainable forest management. My only problem is that amendment 119 is very prescriptive, in that it would require the Scottish ministers to consult Scottish Natural Heritage and other parties. There is room for expanding on what ministers must do, but the proposed provisions are probably too detailed for primary legislation.

Rhoda Grant

On a point of clarification, Gail Ross said that the purpose of amendments 118 and 119 is to enshrine the UK forestry standard in the bill, but from my reading of the amendments, they appear to replace the UK forestry standard.

Gail Ross

The purpose is to adopt the code of practice that currently exists under the UK forestry standard.

Rhoda Grant

Okay.

The Convener

Gail, if you are asked a question, you may deal with it when you wind up the debate.

Gail Ross

Sorry.

Fergus Ewing

I appreciate the efforts that Gail Ross is making with this amendment to address concerns that were raised during stage 1 about the definition and technical aspects of sustainable forest management. During the committee discussions, there was broad acceptance from stakeholders that the current UK forestry standard is a good guide to sustainable forestry practice, providing practical guidance on sustainable forest management in Scotland.

However, the detailed interpretation of what constitutes sustainable forest management is continually developing, and I do not believe that it is appropriate to commit to any specific standard on the face of the bill. I have therefore accepted the committee’s recommendation that the Scottish Government should lay out its approach in the Scottish forest strategy, as well as set out how it will integrate that with the UK forestry standard. Given that I have accepted the need to lay out both the definition of sustainable forest management and the means by which we will integrate the UK forestry standard in the strategy, I do not believe that these amendments are required. Therefore I respectfully ask Gail Ross not to press the amendment, but I offer to meet her so that I can better understand the intent behind it and explore options to address her concerns.

The Convener

I ask Gail Ross to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 118.

Gail Ross

I thank Jamie Greene, Rhoda Grant and the cabinet secretary for their input. Amendment 118 is a probing amendment. Given the cabinet secretary’s comments, I accept his recommendation and withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 118, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 2 agreed to.

After section 2

Amendment 119 not moved.

Section 3—Duty to prepare forestry strategy

The Convener

The third group of amendments is on forestry strategy: content. Amendment 120, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 1, 7, 8, 116 and 117.

Rhoda Grant

Section 3 refers to the forestry strategy and the need for it to include Scottish Government “objectives, priorities and policies” with respect to certain things. Amendment 120 seeks to add to those the economic development of forestry, in particular in communities that are dependent on forestry.

It is clear that many of our communities are dependent on the economic development that is generated by forestry, and their needs must be taken into account in the economic development of forestry. For too long, communities have had little engagement with forestry. Historically, much of the forest planting that has been done has been done as a tax break rather than for economic and environmental good. Ideal forest land is close to our most fragile communities, and while promoting forestry, we have an excellent opportunity to grow and strengthen those communities.

I turn to the other amendments in the group. Although I will listen with interest to the debate on them, I have some concerns. Amendment 1 might constrain the Scottish ministers when they acquire or dispose of land. If what it proposes were not in the strategy, could an acquisition or disposal be challenged? However, I envision a challenge being made only were the land to be subject to compulsory purchase, so it could put a further barrier in the way of compulsory purchase.

I agree with the other amendments in the group, especially amendment 8. I would really like to see more native woodland, and not just for aesthetic reasons. I would like to see us manage and use native timber and native trees.

I move amendment 120.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

My view is that this is a good bill that will be helpful to forestry in Scotland. Because it is such a good bill, I was surprised to find that we would be dealing with 140 or so amendments. I have lodged three of them, and I will speak to just one—amendment 1—because amendments 2 and 3, which we will consider later, are consequential amendments. I have tried to put the issue forward in a constructive way, to add importance to the bill and make it more comprehensive, and I hope that the minister and committee members will accept amendment 1.

Section 3(3) provides that

“The forestry strategy must include the Scottish Ministers’ objectives, priorities and policies with respect to—

(a) the economic development of forestry,

(b) the conservation and enhancement of the environment by means of sustainable forest management,

(c) the realisation of the social benefits of forestry.”

Paragraphs (a) to (c) are all good.

Amendment 1 would add one further paragraph, which would require the Scottish ministers to include in the forestry strategy their objectives, priorities and policies in relation to the acquisition and disposal of land under sections 15 to 17. The strategy is entirely in the hands of ministers in that regard. Such an approach would not be restrictive and would enhance the bill and make it absolutely clear what we are trying to achieve. I hope that members will agree to amendment 1.

On amendment 8, I understand John Finnie’s wishes, but from speaking to the industry, I know that it thinks that providing for a percentage in relation to the planting of native woodland would be overly restrictive. That is the view that has been put to me, and I accept it, so I am not inclined to support amendment 8.

I particularly like amendments 116 and 117, in Richard Lyle’s name.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

I will move amendment 7. There is an omission in the bill, in that it contains no targets on how much planting we want as we go forward. I am keen to see more planting in Scotland, as the cabinet secretary is well aware, and we need targets in the bill that we can scrutinise. Amendment 7 would provide for planting targets, which would give us the opportunity to see how we were progressing in that regard.

I struggle to understand what Rhoda Grant is trying to do with amendment 120. It refers to communities that depend on forestry, but there is no indication of how dependency would be measured. There is a lack of meaning there.

I support Mike Rumbles’s amendment 1.

I oppose John Finnie’s amendment 8, because a percentage is the wrong way forward. We need to plant more of the productive trees that will support the forestry industry and the sawmills. More native woodland will probably be planted as the planting area increases, but it would be wrong to require a certain percentage to be planted, because that would mean planting less of the productive timber that we need.

I support Richard Lyle’s amendments 116 and 117.

The Convener

I remind members that they do not need to move their amendments at this stage.

John Finnie

Amendment 8 is about increasing the percentage of native woodland. The predominant species in Scotland is the Sitka spruce, which is a non-native species that covers a third of our total forest area—I am advised that reliance on a non-native species is unusual in Europe. In Scotland, native woodland accounts for under a quarter of the total woodland and less than a fifth of the national forest estate.

Native woodland has a role to play in forestry production. People will be aware of the big Norbord factory near Inverness, which imports hardwoods from the Baltic states. Native woodland can deliver much more for the ecosystem, recreation, wellbeing, flood prevention and education, and it delivers better soil and air quality and greater biodiversity. Indeed, that is recognised in the Scottish biodiversity strategy.

What we are talking about here is having a target for improving the condition and extent of native woodland. That target is not being met at the moment—indeed, there is an independent assessment of native woodland that says that things are moving in the wrong direction. By accepting my amendment to increase

“the percentage of forest land that is native woodland”,

the Scottish Government could send a very clear signal. Just to be clear, I should point out that it would apply to all forest land, whether publicly owned or privately owned but in receipt of public grants.

The cabinet secretary is entirely right to say that very constructive discussions took place in advance of this meeting. As for Scottish Environment LINK’s proposal that half the woodland should be native, I did not go ahead on that basis; nevertheless, my amendment still talks about increasing the percentage of native woodland. I am very happy to engage in discussions with the cabinet secretary on the issue, but it would be helpful to find out what the Scottish Government’s general direction of travel is.

I should also say that I am supportive of Rhoda Grant’s amendment 120. As has been outlined, the issue is of great significance to some communities. I am relaxed about the amendments in the name of Mike Rumbles and Peter Chapman, and I will be supporting Richard Lyle’s amendments 116 and 117.

Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

The bill will, among other things, repeal the Forestry Act 1967, which gives ministers

“the general duty of promoting the interests of forestry, the development of afforestation and the production and supply of timber and other forest products”.

A number of organisations that were consulted thought that those duties should be carried forward into the bill, but after consideration, the committee came to the view that the proposed forestry strategy should take account of the need to expand forest woodland cover in Scotland and ensure sufficient production of timber for Scotland’s future needs. Amendments 116 and 117 will ensure that the bill reflects the recommendation in paragraph 52 of the committee’s stage 1 report; perhaps more important, it will ensure that Scotland retains a clear and unambiguous commitment to afforestation.

Forest cover in Scotland is 18 per cent, whereas the European Union average is 38 per cent. Forest cover in France, Spain, Germany and Italy is over 30 per cent, while in Scandinavian countries such as Finland and Sweden, it is way above that at 65 per cent and over. At a lunch that I hosted last month for Pakistani MPs, I was told that they had planted more than 1 billion trees in their region alone. We need to do better here.

The committee recognises that the Scottish Government has an ambitious forestry policy that has wide support across the industry and from non-governmental organisations. However, times change, and that might not always be the case. If Scotland’s forest cover were in line with European norms, one might be justified in dropping the existing legal requirement for afforestation, but at a time when we as a nation are seeking to expand our forests and woodlands in order to lock up carbon and support our vital low-carbon industry, dropping the requirements for afforestation and ensuring the supply of timber and forest products would send out the wrong signal.

I therefore urge committee members to support amendments 116 and 117.

Stewart Stevenson

Unusually, I want to encourage Mike Rumbles to at least speak to amendment 2, as the lead amendment in group 6, because if he does not do so, we will not be able to start the debate on the group. His amendment 1 is sensible and adds clarity.

I have no great problems with the underlying intention of the other amendments in the group, but I have some difficulties with their construction. Like Peter Chapman, I have difficulty with the reference to “communities dependant on forestry” in Rhoda Grant’s amendment 120. I would argue that all communities in Scotland are dependent on forestry, in the sense that we have timber-framed houses and furniture made of wood. We need only look around the Parliament; we are sitting at a wooden table. It is therefore not clear that that phrase adds anything.

With regard to Richard Lyle’s amendments 116 and 117, I feel my usual hesitation and reluctance about extending lists. In particular, I think that the reference to

“the production and supply of timber and other forest products”

in amendment 117 is already covered by the reference in the bill to

“the economic development of forestry”.

However, that is debatable.

I share others’ reservations about John Finnie’s amendment 8, although I wish the practical effect of the bill to be an increase in the amount of native woodland in appropriate locations, where it will flourish.

Fergus Ewing

I thank members for an interesting discussion. I am grateful to Mike Rumbles, Peter Chapman, John Finnie, Richard Lyle and Rhoda Grant for lodging the amendments in this group. I am content to support the majority of them in principle, although further work is required in some cases. I signalled to the committee during stage 1 that I recognise the need to be more explicit and to provide clarity on the potential content of the Scottish forestry strategy, and I believe that the intent behind most of the amendments in the group is to achieve the same aim.

I make it clear that I am committed to increasing the benefits that forestry provides to Scotland, whether in improving our environment, our economy or the lives of our people. To achieve that, we must have balance in what we do, employing the best silvicultural practices and engaging with stakeholders to ensure that we have the right tree, whether it be a broad-leaf or a conifer, in the right place for the right reasons. It is fair to reflect that, in some cases, that did not happen in the past.

As the committee has heard me say before, forestry has unique potential for delivering a multitude of environmental, social and economic benefits from one piece of land, and it is important that our strategy recognises and helps to realise that potential. Part of my commitment to increasing the contribution that forestry makes to our rural economy is to secure vibrant rural communities, to which Rhoda Grant refers in amendment 120. However, I feel that the purpose behind that amendment is already clearly articulated in the principles of the land use strategy and the provisions of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, which provide people with opportunities to engage and to influence decisions that affect their lives and future. I therefore respectfully ask Rhoda Grant not to press amendment 120.

On amendment 1, I have committed to securing the national forest estate as a public asset and I intend that the overarching principles for disposals should appear in the forestry strategy. I am therefore happy to support Mike Rumbles’s amendment and I appreciate his general comments on the bill. However, if the committee supports Mr Rumbles’s amendment, I reserve the right to look further at the drafting before stage 3 in case there are any technical difficulties with it that have not yet come to light.

I also accept the principles behind amendments 7, 8 and 116, but I believe that there are some difficulties and gaps in their approach. I therefore offer to work with members to lodge a Government amendment at stage 3 to capture the intentions of those amendments, and in particular the important objective of increasing the area of native woodland. As members may be aware, I have already made available increased grant support for native woodland creation in the Highland Council area, in recognition of the substantial benefits that such woods can bring. An additional £400 per hectare has been made available for planting of native woodland in that area. We are also developing work on woodland crofts, and we work closely with bodies such as the Woodland Trust. In conclusion, I ask the members concerned not to move amendments 7, 8 and 116 and to accept my offer to bring forward an appropriate amendment at stage 3 that addresses all three.

Finally, on amendment 117, I recognise the concerns of the forestry sector regarding the continued commitment of the Scottish Government to woodland expansion in order to underpin the sustainable timber products industry, which also ties in with our climate change ambitions to increase the amount of timber that is used in house building. For that reason, I support amendment 117.

The Convener

I ask Rhoda Grant to wind up and to say whether she wants to press or withdraw amendment 120.

Rhoda Grant

I will reflect on some of the comments that have been made and will perhaps come back at stage 3 with an amended amendment. I will not press amendment 120.

Amendment 120, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 1 moved—[Mike Rumbles]—and agreed to.

Amendment 7 moved—[Peter Chapman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Abstentions

Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 7 disagreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 8, in the name of John Finnie, has already been debated with amendment 120.

John Finnie

I have a brief comment to make in light of what the cabinet secretary said. I am very keen to have some certainty on the issue and to know whether the figure will apply to all forests or to the national forest estate. Rather than moving the amendment, I will engage in further discussions on the matter.

Amendment 8 not moved.

The Convener

Amendment 116, in the name of Richard Lyle, has already been debated with amendment 120.

Richard Lyle

I respect the cabinet secretary’s comments in respect of the amendment. He is a very honourable man and I look forward to working with him on the issue, because I am set on increasing the amount of afforestation in Scotland.

Amendment 116 not moved.

Amendment 117 moved—[Richard Lyle]—and agreed to.

The Convener

The next group of amendments is on forest strategy preparation, revision and reporting. Amendment 9, in the name of Peter Chapman, is grouped with amendments 15, 121, 122, 4, 123 to 128, 16, 17, 10, and 130. If amendment 9 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 15.

Peter Chapman

We have just heard that the cabinet secretary requires clarity with the bill and I consider that amendment 9 provides a degree of clarity. We need a review of the strategy every five years and a refresh of the strategy every 10 years. That is only right and proper. We need the ability to scrutinise the progress of the strategy. Amendment 9 provides an important addition to the bill and I hope that it will receive support from members.

As the convener pointed out, amendment 15, in the name of Rhoda Grant, would fall if amendment 9 in my name is agreed to.

I do not agree with amendment 121, in the name of Fulton MacGregor. There is too much analysis and the amendment would make the bill overly prescriptive and far too detailed.

I would vote against amendment 122, in the name of Claudia Beamish, because it is far too specific and burdensome on ministers. I can support Claudia Beamish’s amendment 4, because what it proposes is reasonable and logical. However, I do not support her amendment 123. The bill is a forestry one, so why do we need to get bogged down in deer management issues? There are deer management strategies in place elsewhere, so the matter does not need to appear in the bill.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 124 is about having regard to the Kyoto protocol. Again, we are already signed up to that and it is an international treaty that I believe has no place in a forestry bill in Scotland; ditto for amendments 125 and 126, which refer to international agreements that are well understood and have no place in the bill, and for amendment 127, which is also about a matter that has no place in the bill. I am against amendment 128, on communities, persons and policies, because it would override elements of agricultural tenancies. I can support amendment 16 as it would add another layer of scrutiny that would be fair and proper. I can also support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 17, because it would give a fit and proper level of transparency. The cabinet secretary’s amendment 18 would tighten up wording, which is fine.

On my amendment 10, it is important that there is an annual report. It is important that there is financial transparency and that we can monitor targets in the forestry strategy, so an annual report is essential. I believe that my amendment 10 is superior to John Finnie’s amendment 130, because we need an annual report rather than one every three years.

I move amendment 9.

Rhoda Grant

I will speak to my amendments 15, 124 to 128, 16 and 17, and to others in the group.

It is important that the strategy is reviewed regularly to ensure that it meets the needs of forestry, and I suggest that that is most important for the first strategy. My amendment 15 is along similar lines to Peter Chapman’s amendment 9 in that it would set timescales for review. However, I believe that my amendment would allow greater flexibility, in that the strategy could continue without revision if that is not required, but such a decision would face scrutiny as Scottish ministers would have to publish an explanation as to why they decided not to revise the strategy.

Jamie Greene

Will Rhoda Grant take an intervention?

The Convener

I will let you come in later, Jamie, if I may.

John Mason

Convener, are interventions not allowed?

The Convener

Because the groupings are quite big, I am just trying to let members go through them. However, it is up to Rhoda Grant whether she is happy to take the intervention; otherwise, I am happy to bring Jamie Greene in at the end with the other members who want to speak on particular amendments.

Rhoda Grant

Because I did not move the lead amendment in the group, I do not think that I have a wind-up speech. It therefore might be useful to hear just now what Jamie Greene is asking about so that I can give him clarity.

The Convener

Okay.

Jamie Greene

Thank you, convener, and I appreciate Rhoda Grant taking my intervention. It feels intuitively easier to intervene on a specific point while she is speaking about it, particularly as this is such a large group of amendments.

Does Rhoda Grant not feel that the second part of her amendment, regarding the Scottish ministers publishing an explanation of why they have not revised the strategy, would give the ministers a bit of a get-out clause? An amendment that would make it mandatory for the strategy to be reviewed and refreshed would be more powerful. There are similarities between Peter Chapman’s amendment 9 and Rhoda Grant’s amendment 15, but we would prefer to lock down that Scottish ministers must review the strategy, as opposed to giving them a get-out-of-jail card. I am keen to probe that aspect further.

Rhoda Grant

It is not a get-out-of-jail card; it is the opposite. A forestry strategy needs to be long term because of the nature of the industry. Therefore, it would not be helpful to change direction every five years. However, there may be issues in the first strategy in particular that have unintended consequences, so it would need to be reviewed to ensure that it is right.

Allowing for a review but not prescribing one is the right way forward, as it would enable the strategy to look further into the future. If there was a problem, ministers could review it. At the same time, ministers would not be able to decide not to review the strategy without giving an explanation that the Parliament would scrutinise. If there was a need for a review, one would happen because it would have to come to the Parliament and the committee could recommend that a full review should take place if that was necessary. Amendment 15 would just mean that people would not have to jump through all the hoops every five years.

Amendments 124 to 126 add some international conventions and the Kyoto protocol to the list of things to which the Scottish ministers must have regard when preparing the strategy. In the past, we have heavily depended on European legislation for working alongside other countries and ensuring that we follow best practice and protect our environment. Before too long, we will no longer have that protection. Therefore, it is good to ground our practice internationally to ensure that we remain world leaders. Not so long ago, blocks of Sitka spruce were planted randomly around the countryside and forests were planted on the flow country, releasing carbon rather than capturing it. It will take us a long time to undo those wrongs, but we must ensure that we never repeat past mistakes. I hope that amendments 124 to 126 will go some way towards ensuring that protection.

Amendments 127 and 128 return to the theme of protecting communities. Although forestry is a good thing in itself, it is important to use every lever that is at our disposal to grow and empower fragile communities. Amendments 127 and 128 add repopulation and agricultural businesses to the list of issues to which the Scottish Government must have regard when preparing the strategy. One hopes that that would happen instinctively but, given the importance of those issues to fragile communities, it is right that they be given that protection and importance in the bill.

Amendments 16 and 17 concern the consultation on, and parliamentary scrutiny of, the strategy. Given the fact that much of the detail surrounding forestry will be in the strategy, it is right that the strategy should be widely consulted on and that the outcome of the consultation should be scrutinised by Parliament. The timeframe given would allow a committee of the Parliament to take evidence and make recommendations to the Scottish ministers on the strategy. Given the time that the strategy will cover, it is right that it should be fully tested to ensure that it meets the needs of future generations.

I will speak to some of the other amendments in the group. I support Claudia Beamish’s amendments 122, 4 and 123. There has to be a reporting mechanism, so I will also listen to the debate on John Finnie’s amendment 130 and Peter Chapman’s amendments 9 and 10 and decide which of those to support.

Fulton MacGregor (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)

Amendment 121 is concerned with the consultation requirements when the strategy is being prepared or advised. It amends the duty to consult in section 4 to specify that the general public must be consulted. It would also mean that ministers would also have to consult

“such bodies as they consider appropriate”.

That conforms to Scottish Government good practice on consultation across a range of areas. I hope that the Government will recognise that appropriate consultation is fundamental to developing, reviewing and revising the strategy.

I await with interest the debate on the other amendments in the group. I welcome Claudia Beamish’s input, but I have some concerns about her amendments 122, 4 and 123. Amendment 122 is a long, non-comprehensive list and is already covered by principles in the land use strategy. Amendments 4 and 123 to 128 appear to duplicate existing legislation, as ministers already have a biodiversity duty under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.

The Convener

I call Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 122 and the other amendments in the group.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Amendment 122 intends to ensure that Scotland’s wealth of forestry expertise is preserved in the new devolved arrangements, specifically in the preparation or the revision of the forestry strategy.

The bill requires ministers to

“consult such persons as they consider appropriate”,

whereas my amendment 122 lists specific requirements of those persons who are to be consulted. I appreciate the earlier comments about lists having their dangers, but it is important to highlight these areas.

A sustainable forestry industry can deliver multiple environmental and socioeconomic benefits for the public good. Indeed, that is sustainable development. To truly unlock the benefits, our forests need to be managed through an integrated and sustainable approach. Stakeholders from the forestry industries and community and environmental groups have shared their concerns that rearranging Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland could lead to a loss of forestry focus and expertise. The existing arrangements allow for resource and knowledge sharing and close working relationships with those on the forest floor. It would be a great loss if the joined-up approach and vital expertise were reduced by the devolution of forestry and land management, particularly in those sectors that are important to climate change, biodiversity, the economy and communities.

Amendment 122 requires ministers, in the preparation or the revision of the forestry strategy, to consult those with knowledge of “social and economic development” as well as knowledge of the other areas that I have listed. I also make the point that, as I understand it, the land use strategy is not a statutory requirement.

I lodged amendments 4 and 123 separately, so that one or the other could be supported, depending on members’ views.

Section 4, “Preparation of forestry strategy”, states:

“Scottish Ministers must—

(a) consult such persons as they consider appropriate,

(b) have regard to—

(i) the land use strategy ... and

(ii) the land rights and responsibilities statement”.

The two policies mentioned should be included in this exercise, but the list is not complete, and other important policies that are relevant to the forestry strategy should be included. Therefore, amendments 4 and 123 are needed to ensure that biodiversity and deer management—two essential components of achieving sustainable forest management—are recognised in the bill.

I will not go into the details of where those components are referred to in other acts, but I reiterate that the amendments address one of the points made about the bill at stage 1 by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee in its letter to this committee. We stated:

“The Committee is unclear as to what degree wider policy objectives, including those relating to biodiversity, deer management and climate change, are reflected in the Bill and in particular, are to be taken account of in the preparation of the Forestry Strategy ... The Committee also considers there is merit in including the need to have regard to biodiversity and deer management requirements on the face of the Bill.”

Your committee’s stage 1 report states:

“The Committee believes that strong links between forestry and policy areas”—

I will not quote all the areas; they are listed in the report. However, I must point out that, although biodiversity is listed, deer management is not. The report continues:

“It notes the Scottish Government’s awareness of its existing statutory commitments. However, it is clear that stakeholders are seeking reassurance that the need for this policy integration will be clear and unambiguous and that there will be a requirement for it to be delivered.”

I thank the committee and the cabinet secretary for listening to my points. I support Rhoda Grant’s amendments. As a member of the ECCLR Committee, I support the climate change amendment, but I support the others, too. Rhoda Grant’s point is well made: as we head towards Brexit, it is important that we recognise other international agreements and tie ourselves to those in our important forestry sector.

The Convener

I call John Finnie to speak to amendment 130 and the other amendments in the group.

John Finnie

In amendment 130, which relates to the preparation of the forestry strategy in section 4 and the bill’s relationship to overarching policy objectives, I suggest that the reporting period be three years.

Section 4 states:

“In preparing ... the forestry strategy, the Scottish Ministers must—

(a) consult such persons as they consider appropriate,

(b) have regard to—

(i) the land use strategy ... and

(ii) the land rights and responsibilities statement.”

Those two policies should certainly be included in that exercise, but the list is, in my view, not complete. Other very important policies are relevant to the forestry strategy and should be included, too.

Having listened to what my colleague and dear friend Claudia Beamish had to say, I think that we have very similar views on what is important here. I am not going to repeat many of the things that she said, but I will say that her amendments are needed to ensure biodiversity and deer management—two components that are, as the bill recognises, essential for achieving sustainable forest management. They will also ensure that the forestry strategy contributes to the delivery of public policy objectives in those two areas. The subsection in question should include references to that strategy or those strategies as long as Scottish ministers are required to designate the Scottish biodiversity strategy under section 2 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 and the code of practice on deer management that Scottish Natural Heritage is required to prepare and keep under review in accordance with section 5A of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996.

Indeed, the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 requires all public bodies to have regard to the Scottish biodiversity strategy, which recognises the importance of native woodland to Scottish biodiversity and whose route map sets ambitious native woodland planting targets. I would also point out that the voluntary code of practice on deer management places a responsibility on all land managers to manage wild deer—the issue is highly pertinent to our discussions; after all, deer live in the woods and eat trees—and aims to integrate deer management with other land use objectives such as woodland creation and the regeneration targets. The concept of responsible deer management in the code focuses on three things: managing deer as a resource sustainably; minimising negative deer impacts on public interests; and safeguarding deer welfare.

I was going to quote from the report of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, of which Claudia Beamish is a member; I will not do so, but the reference itself is highly pertinent. I simply point out that our own stage 1 report commented on the strong links between forestry and policy areas such as land use planning, community empowerment and climate change.

I am prepared to wait and hear what Peter Chapman and Rhoda Grant have to say about the other amendments in the group. I favour Rhoda Grant’s position, and I will be supporting her amendment. Likewise, I will support Fulton MacGregor’s amendment and Claudia Beamish’s amendments—which I heard someone call restrictive, although they are quite the reverse. A list that begins with the phrase “in particular” is not an exclusive one, and I am sure that Claudia will expect the fullest consultation to be carried out on those issues.

The Convener

I will call a number of other members to speak, but the fact that a member spoke at the beginning of or halfway through the debate does not mean that they cannot come back in later. The process should not be restrictive in that respect, although that does not give anyone an excuse to repeat their arguments.

Stewart Stevenson

The idea that scrutiny can be undertaken only if amendment 9, in the name of Peter Chapman, is agreed to is entirely false. Indeed, the amendment gets ministers off the hook, because it gives them the responsibility for scrutiny when it should be Parliament that decides timetables, scrutiny and so on. If the Parliament or a committee thinks that it is right to have scrutiny after 18 months, it should be in control of that and have that scrutiny. Whether the period should be five or 10 years is, I think, an issue more of nuance than of principle, but scrutiny should be under the Parliament’s control instead of the issue being put in the way that Peter Chapman has put it.

The amendments in the group give us a choice of approaches, and I think that amendment 130, in the name of John Finnie, offers the best of the bunch. Nevertheless, I have a wee bit of difficulty with subsection 3(a) in that amendment, as it requires the reporting period to start from the day that the bill receives royal assent. I suspect that, if the bill is agreed to, we might have to look at that again at stage 3, because I think that the right time for the three-year reporting clock to begin is more likely to be at commencement or when the strategy is adopted. However, that detail can be dealt with later.

Claudia Beamish’s amendment 122 perfectly illustrates the danger of having lists in primary legislation, although I am not against having them in secondary legislation, where we can change them rapidly as needs require. For example, the list in the amendment does not include the use of forests for public good. I accept that it says “consult, in particular” but, the moment that we produce a list and say “in particular”, we demote all other ways in which we might consult to a lesser level than those that we choose to put in the list. In broad principle, I do not like having lists in primary legislation, although I have no objection to them in secondary legislation, where they can be amended quickly as required.

By the same token, amendments 4, 123, 124, 125 and 126—I will leave aside amendment 127 for the moment—all refer to matters that already bind us, as the UK’s signatories to the protocols or that, alternatively, are part of our legislative framework in the case of amendments 4 and 123. Again, once we start to stick words in in the manner of a list, we demote, by implication, the things that we choose not to put in.

I have less of an objection to amendment 127, as there is some merit in it.

Finally, the construction of amendment 17, at paragraph (b), has a serious flaw. It says that the Government must publish

“any representations received as a result of the consultation”.

That appears to remove the right of people who wish to submit a representation without their details being published. Therefore, there is a technical flaw in the construction of amendment 17 that means that I cannot readily support it.

Mike Rumbles

We have been given alternative approaches to revision reporting here. I much prefer Peter Chapman’s amendments 9 and 10 to the others. I do not agree with my colleague Stewart Stevenson that amendment 9 lets the Government off the hook; it does precisely the opposite. As I read it, the amendment that Peter Chapman has moved gives Parliament the authority and does exactly the opposite of what Stewart Stevenson suggests.

Stewart Stevenson

Will the member take an intervention?

Mike Rumbles

No. I heard what the member said and I am contradicting him because I do not believe that he is correct. As a committee of the Parliament, we instruct the Government or—if “instruct” is perhaps too strong a word—require it to come back and do that. I am sure that the Government thinks that that should be appropriate. I cannot see what the problem with it might be. Amendments 9 and 10 give the Government more time to do that, but it is putting into legislation the requirement to do it. It is about Parliament being in charge and not the Government, so I entirely disagree with the position taken by Stewart Stevenson.

I agree with Fulton MacGregor’s amendment 121, which shows good practice on consultation, and I am happy to support it.

I am afraid that I cannot support the other amendments in group 4, on the ground that we are scrutinising the bill, we have called for evidence and we have taken evidence on the bill. When have we taken evidence on the voluntary code of practice on deer management? At stage 1, we spent a great deal of time going through all that, and then suddenly we have an amendment thrown at us that talks about a code of practice—

John Finnie

Does the member accept that this piece of legislation will not stand in splendid isolation from others and from codes?

Mike Rumbles

That is exactly my point. It is not necessary to have it here. I am glad that John Finnie supports my point of view. I think that I have been comprehensive enough, so I will close my remarks at that point.

Jamie Greene

I will speak briefly to amendments 9 and 10.

My understanding is that there are quite acceptable precedents of five and 10-year reviews and refreshes. I believe that the language in amendment 9 is similar to the language in another bill that this committee is considering—the Islands (Scotland) Bill—for which the Government seems to find five and 10-year timeframes quite adequate for Parliament to scrutinise strategy.

On amendment 10, I have spoken to industry stakeholders who had initial concerns about the overarching rationale behind the bill and the integration of the Forestry Commission into Scottish Government departments. They feel that an annual report is a vital part of the on-going governance of the strategy and, indeed, that it would be prudent for the Government to report on an annual basis, including on finances, as the Forestry Commission is currently used to doing. Amendment 10 would ensure that that reporting was on-going and would not slip in any way from the status quo.

Claudia Beamish

In response to Stewart Stevenson’s point about the phrase

“in particular, persons with experience and knowledge of”,

it might be appropriate for me to consider not moving amendment 122 at this stage and using the word “including” rather than “in particular”. I have listened to the point that the member raised.

In relation to Rhoda Grant’s amendments and my own, I would like to know why it is unacceptable to have any list added. Section 4(b) includes the wording

“have regard to— ... land use strategy ... and ... the land rights and responsibilities statement”,

so there is already a precedent in the bill for putting important strategies and declarations in a list.

In relation to Mike Rumbles’s comment, deer management was highlighted by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee in our letter at stage 1, and I had attended a number of this committee’s meetings. I also raised and highlighted the matter in the stage 1 debate. I am just making the point that it has been highlighted before.

Fergus Ewing

It has been another interesting discussion, which has even contained moments of entertainment—something that is not always present in stage 2 debates in my experience. I am grateful to all members, and to Claudia Beamish, Peter Chapman, Rhoda Grant, Fulton MacGregor and John Finnie for lodging these amendments. I support the intentions of a number of them.

I am also pleased with the cross-party support for the development of the forestry strategy. It is heartening that there is strong agreement on all sides that it needs to reflect the broad-based, multifunctional nature of Scotland’s forests and woodlands. Again, convener, I would emphasise that I am committed to working with all parties to develop and improve this part of the bill.

Before I address specific amendments, I wanted to reflect on the fact that, by its very nature, the completion of the devolution of forestry will result in enhanced levels of scrutiny of forestry by this Scottish Parliament. That is something of which we should not lose sight. It is also something to be welcomed and borne in mind when framing the legislation on the strategy.

I also observe that the processes for publishing, reviewing and scrutinising the forestry strategy must be proportionate and enabling. I believe that we must avoid putting into law requirements that, ultimately, might impede the publication of the strategy or place barriers in the way of revision. I know that the sector has expressed reservations about that happening.

Amendments 9 and 15 are, perhaps, alternatives. They deal with the review and refresh of the forestry strategy. I ask members, in considering them, to note two important points, and to refer to the wording of section 3 of the bill, which members will have before them. Section 3(4) already requires Scottish ministers to

“keep the forestry strategy under review”

and states that they

“may, if they consider it appropriate ... revise the strategy.”

Therefore, that requirement is contained in the bill as it stands.

As I said to the committee at stage 1, I am mindful that the forestry sector depends on a long-term and stable policy environment. That is important to ensure on-going investment, which I believe we all recognise is required. Therefore, it is vital that the review cycle for the strategy is of appropriate length. I believe that fixing a five-yearly review cycle for the strategy would not be sufficiently long—it would be shorter than the current common agricultural policy cycle of seven years; and I say, in passing, that discontinuity has proven to be a problem for sustaining consistent forestry activity.

I have committed to ensuring that the strategy remains up to date and relevant. Therefore, I ask Peter Chapman not to press amendment 9 and Rhoda Grant not to move amendment 15, on the basis that I commit to come back at stage 3 with an amendment that sets out an appropriate review and revision cycle of no more than 10 years.

As I suspect members know very well, forestry is a very long-term process. The period from planting to maturation is 40 years, even for the most quick-growing species, and can be up to 80 years or longer for other species. We are talking about 40 to 80 years, so it is a long, long-term business. If there was to be a strategy review every five years, even taking the fastest-growing species, which I believe—although I am no expert—to be the Sitka spruce, there would be eight strategy reviews between planting and maturation. Is that consistent with the approach that, I believe, we wish to take?

Jamie Greene

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fergus Ewing

I certainly will, but let me finish the point. We are talking about five years versus a longer period of up to 10 years. Is a five-year period of sufficient length? With great respect, I suggest that because, unusually, we are talking about a very long-term process, such a requirement for review should not be embedded in the legislation.

I make the further point that the Parliament is sovereign over the Scottish Government so, at any time after the bill is passed and becomes law, it can require the Government to review the strategy. In circumstances in which a review was necessary, I would fully expect members to scrutinise the Government and demand a strategy review. I wanted to point that out, although Mr Rumbles made the point earlier.

I am happy to take an intervention from Mr Greene, if he still wants to intervene.

Jamie Greene

Does the cabinet secretary not accept that a review of the strategy does not necessarily mean a complete overhaul? Would it not be prudent to have a five-yearly refresh? Is it not appropriate that the Government should afford Parliament and the public the opportunity of at least one refresh or review within each parliamentary cycle, which is five years, whatever form that review takes?

Fergus Ewing

Not really. As I said, the Parliament in this session and in future ones can always require Government to do things. Indeed, the Parliament has required the Government to do things in the field of rural affairs, and I hope that we have acted on that—the National Council of Rural Advisers is just one example. Not every member is always absolutely happy with the outcomes, but we act on Parliament’s wish, and Parliament can require a review.

I am saying that we should not set in law having to do a review within five years—I believe that it is too short a period given the long-term nature of forestry. However, I emphasise that if the authors of amendments 9 and 15 do not press or do not move those amendments and accept my commitment to work with them and to come back at stage 3 with an amendment that sets out an appropriate review and revision cycle of no more than 10 years, I will be happy to work with them.

On amendments 121 and 122, from Mr MacGregor and Ms Beamish, I recognise that appropriate consultation is fundamental to developing, reviewing and revising the strategy, and that is the approach that the Government takes to all of its policy formulation. However, to be appropriate, consultation needs to reflect the needs of the time and not include partial lists that risk becoming rapidly out of date. Mr Stevenson gave an example of a potential consultee that was not included in the list, although Ms Beamish might say that the reference in her amendment to consulting “in particular” would not exclude consulting others, to be fair to her. However, the Government is not in favour of long, exclusive lists in primary legislation, because they can date quickly and fail to draw in relevant matters.

An even more pressing objection is to the requirement to consult, in particular,

“persons with experience or knowledge of”

various matters, which then imposes on the Government a duty to carry out some form of process to ascertain who does or does not possess experience or knowledge. That would, I suspect, be a highly contentious process; it would involve making subjective judgments and, inevitably, would be controversial. I see no easy way of deciding who has or does not have knowledge; indeed, the process of judging someone to have no—or insufficient—experience or knowledge would be a somewhat odious one that no Government could easily or readily perform without a great deal of difficulty or controversy. With respect to Claudia Beamish, I am sure that that is not something that she would wish to occur at all. I hope that members can see my objection as a commonsense one, pointing to a technical infelicity in draftsmanship.

I respectfully ask Claudia Beamish not to press amendment 122 and, instead, ask members to support amendment 121 in the name of Mr MacGregor, which, as Mr Rumbles pointed out, is in the customary form and imports a duty to consult widely. I am not aware of any cases of the Scottish Government being accused of failing to consult the right people in consultations, although if I am wrong, I will no doubt hear about that.

On amendment 128, it is not helpful to list specific groups of stakeholders and the amendment covers the same ground as the duty under section 4 to have regard to the land use strategy, which contains a specific principle of giving people opportunities to contribute to land use decisions that affect their lives and futures. Therefore, I ask members not to move amendments 4 and 123 to 128 and to accept a commitment that the Government will return at stage 3 with an amendment that delivers the improved policy alignment that they wish to see without creating a long and exclusive list on the face of the bill.

Turning, penultimately, to amendments 16 and 17, on the important question of parliamentary scrutiny, I fully support the principle of appropriate scrutiny and oversight of the Scottish forestry strategy, but the process and timescales outlined are disproportionate given the scale and scope of the strategy. The process appears to be the same as that required under climate change legislation, which is larger, more complex and multisectoral. There might be alternative, more proportionate approaches that would meet Parliament’s desire for scrutiny while ensuring sufficient time for the crucial processes to complete the strategy before 1 April 2019.

I agree with the processes laid out in amendment 17—laying an explanatory document represents good practice. However, I ask Rhoda Grant not to press her amendments and offer to lodge a Government amendment at stage 3 that lays out an appropriate process for parliamentary oversight of the forestry strategy.

Finally, amendments 10 and 130 deal with reporting. A three-yearly reporting cycle is an appropriate term for updating Parliament on progress on implementing the strategy, as it reflects the slowly changing nature of forestry. I support amendment 130, in the name of John Finnie, but I want to lodge an amendment at stage 3 to ensure that the reporting cycle starts when a strategy has been published. I will also want to consider how the requirement for a three-yearly reporting cycle will inform amendments that I lodge at stage 3 on reviewing the strategy and parliamentary scrutiny of it. As I said earlier, I offer to work with all parties on the relevant sections of the bill.

In consequence of my support for amendment 130, I respectfully ask Peter Chapman not to move amendment 10, which proposes annual reports, given that key forestry statistics—for example, on the area of new woodland created—will continue to be published annually as national statistics. Forest and land Scotland—the new agency that will replace Forest Enterprise Scotland—will produce annual reports, as Forest Enterprise has done.

Peter Chapman

I will press amendment 9. It is important that the strategy be reviewed every five years. I appreciate what the cabinet secretary said about the lifetime of a tree, which is considerably more than five years, but we are speaking about not the lifetime of a tree but a parliamentary session, and things can change radically in five years. I am grateful for what Mike Rumbles and Jamie Greene said in support of the approach that amendment 9 is trying to achieve. It is important that there is clarity, that any new Parliament gets the opportunity to review the strategy and that the strategy is revised every 10 years.

I heard what the cabinet secretary said about amendment 10, but it is normal procedure for any organisation to produce an annual report—most organisations do it and it is important to have transparency in that regard. Therefore, I intend to move amendment 10.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Abstentions

Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 9 disagreed to.

Amendment 15 not moved.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Section 4—Preparation of forestry strategy

Amendment 121 moved—[Fulton MacGregor].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 121 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 8, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 121 agreed to.

The Convener

Amendment 122 is in the name of Claudia Beamish.

Claudia Beamish

In view of the points that the cabinet secretary and Stewart Stevenson made, I will not move amendment 122. However, perhaps in dialogue with the cabinet secretary, I will consider returning to the issue at stage 3, because I think that there is considerable stakeholder concern about the matter, whether it is provided for in the bill or elsewhere. Similarly, I do not intend to move amendment 4, but I would be happy to have further discussions on the issue.

Amendments 122 and 4 not moved.

The Convener

Amendment 123 is in the name of Claudia Beamish.

Claudia Beamish

I am not going to move amendment 123, but in recognition of the serious concerns about deer management, I would like some assurance that it might be possible to discuss that further.

Amendments 123 to 128 not moved.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

After section 4

Amendment 16 not moved.

Section 5—Publication of forestry strategy

Amendment 17 not moved.

Section 5 agreed to.

Section 6—Duty to have regard to forestry strategy

The Convener

Amendment 18, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 19 to 22, 24 to 35, 38, 111, 112 and 115. I point out that if amendment 38 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 39 in the group on disposals of land and compulsory purchase of land.

Fergus Ewing

This set of Scottish Government amendments has been lodged in response to stakeholder and parliamentary feedback at stage 1. A number of stakeholders and the committee sought greater clarity on the bill’s duties relating to land management, specifically on the land that is to be managed under section 9 for the purposes of sustainable forest management and the land that is to be managed under section 13 to further the achievement of sustainable development.

I have listened to the concerns raised and received many helpful suggestions on how the sections might usefully be reframed. I am pleased to lodge amendments that address the issues raised and which have been welcomed by the forestry sector as providing helpful clarification.

In response to questions about how land to be managed under each duty would be identified, my amendments introduce a simple determining characteristic upon which the decision will be made: namely, land that is forested must be managed under the section 9 duty for sustainable forest management; land that is not forested will be managed under the section 13 duty to further sustainable development.

Amendments 24 to 31 acknowledge that change and reframe the section 9 duty to apply to “forested” land, rather than “forestry” land. As amended, section 10 will define forested land to include both land in the national forest estate that is forested and land that is otherwise owned or managed by Scottish ministers and is forested. Taken together, the effect is that all forested land owned or managed by Scottish ministers will be managed under the section 9 duty in accordance with sustainable forest management. For the purposes of the bill, “forested” includes land undergoing afforestation.

The bill, as introduced, identified the power for ministers to manage forestry land for the purposes of sustainable development. That provided the ability to move land between the forestry land management duty and the sustainable development land management duty. Due to the introduction of “forested” as the characteristic of the land that will determine the duty, that power is no longer needed and will be removed from the bill by amendment 26.

I have explained that section 10, as amended, will define forested land to include the forested parts of the national forest estate. Amendment 38 specifies that the non-forested parts of the NFE are to be managed under the section 13 duty to further sustainable development with other non-forested land. Some stakeholders had concerns that the bill, as introduced, implied that all of the national forest estate was forested and that labelling it as “forestry land” was misleading. I hope that this approach, which recognises the nature of the estate as one third open land, allays that concern. The division of the NFE between the two land management duties will be achieved by the allocation of management blocks to each duty, based on the detailed inventory that is held by Forest Enterprise Scotland. The inventory covers the entire estate and includes information on what land is forested and non-forested. New acquisitions of land, and land that is managed on behalf of other people under section 14, will be allocated on the same basis, according to whether they are forested or non-forested.

The definition in the bill of the national forest estate is amended in consequence of the changes to sections 10 and 13(2). New acquisitions of land, if forested, will automatically come under the section 9 duty and do not need to be labelled as NFE to do so. For that reason, the definition of the NFE in the bill has been amended to mean the land in Scotland that is currently under management by the forestry commissioners and which will transfer to Scottish ministers on devolution. The definition in section 11 is further amended so that only land that remains in the ownership of ministers is included. That is to ensure that the land management duties cease if ownership changes.

Amendments 18 to 22 make consequential amendments to section 6, which places duties on ministers to have regard to the forestry strategy when performing certain functions. The effect of the amendments is to require ministers to have regard to the strategy when managing forested land, acquiring land under the bill and disposing of forested land.

I hope that members will consider that the amendments provide the clarity that was sought around the operation of the land management powers in the bill, and I encourage members to support them.

I move amendment 18.

The Convener

No members wish to speak on the amendment.

Amendment 18 agreed to.

Amendments 19 to 21 moved—[Fergus Ewing].

The Convener

Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 19 to 21?

Peter Chapman

Yes, I object.

The Convener

I will put a question on each amendment individually. The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 8, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 19 agreed to.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 20 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 8, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 20 agreed to.

Amendment 21 agreed to.

The Convener

The next group concerns disposals of land and compulsory purchase. Amendment 2, in the name of Mike Rumbles, is grouped with amendments 39, 6, 40, 3, 41, 42, 12 and 12A. I remind members that, if amendment 38, which was debated in the previous group, on land managed by Scottish ministers, is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 39 in this group. I must further point out that, if amendment 41 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 42.

Mike Rumbles

I thank the minister for accepting my first amendment, amendment 1, in the spirit in which it was lodged. Amendments 2 and 3 are simply consequential amendments, so I will not spend a great deal of time on them. I hope that the minister and members of the committee will accept that, because we have agreed to amendment 1, it is logical to agree to amendments 2 and 3.

I will spend my time focusing on the other amendments, which address what is, in my view, the one controversial issue in the whole of the bill. At stage 1, we took a great deal of evidence on the proposal to transfer the compulsory purchase of land from the Forestry Act 1967 to the new bill. We focused on that in our report, and although we thought that it was fine to transfer those powers we did not think that it was fine to enhance the powers. In a division, the majority of the committee voted to make that clear in the stage 1 report.

I was rather hopeful that the minister might have taken that on board, and that he might have lodged amendments to do that, but he obviously has not done so. Amendments 39, 6 and 42, which are the key amendments, have been lodged by Peter Chapman. That reflects the view that the committee took in a majority vote at stage 1, and here we are at stage 2. One would hope that the committee members who voted that way at stage 1 would vote the same way now at stage 2. I cannot think what has changed, unless guidance has been given to members from various sources to suggest that they change their minds. I hope that members of the committee are stronger than that.

John Mason

Will the member take an intervention?

Mike Rumbles

I think that John Mason will have a moment to speak if he wants to, so I do not see the need for an intervention. I am just trying to make a point.

I well remember my first experience of stage 2 proceedings, during the first session of Parliament, when I had an envelope passed to me with guidance from the Government—or the Executive, as we called it at the time. I did not even read it. I just wrote the minister’s name on the envelope and handed it back. We have a job in this committee and in the Parliament to look at the evidence, examine it and make up our own minds. I am confident that members of this committee have the strength of character to do the right thing.

I move amendment 2.

Peter Chapman

I will speak to amendments 39 and 6, in my name. This is an important part of the bill, and to my mind it is a red-line area. It is about compulsory purchase powers and the proposal to increase compulsory purchase powers to allow purchase for sustainable development. I am strongly against adding extra powers under the compulsory powers rules. We are content to roll over the powers that exist under the 1967 act, because we agree that, in certain circumstances, compulsory purchase powers may be necessary, but extending those compulsory purchase powers to include sustainable development opens it far too wide and gives ministers far too much power. I think that it is completely unnecessary.

We need to reflect on the fact that, although there are compulsory purchase powers in the 1967 act, in the 50 years that they have been there they have never actually been used. I cannot understand why it is thought to be necessary to widen those powers. It is important that we amend the bill in that regard, so I hope that amendments 39 and 6 will receive the committee’s support.

Fergus Ewing

I will deal with the amendments that relate to the disposal of land before I turn to the ones on compulsory purchase.

Amendment 41, in my name, flows from the Government amendments on management of land by the Scottish ministers, the effect of which is to change the definitions of “forestry land” in section 10 and “national forest estate” in section 11. The purpose of amendment 41 is to reframe section 17, which deals with disposals of land, to ensure that the Scottish ministers may dispose of not only land in the national forest estate but other forested land that they own and that is not part of the estate, such as forested land that is acquired under the bill. Amendment 41 will also amend section 17 so that ministers may dispose of non-forested land that they have acquired under the bill.

I understand that amendments 2 and 3, in the name of Mr Rumbles, are consequential to his amendment 1, which I supported, so it follows that I will support them. However, before stage 3, I would like to look at the potential interaction between those provisions and the Government’s amendments that relate to land management, in case there are unintended consequences that need to be addressed. Mr Rumbles will appreciate that that is a necessary process.

Amendments 12, in Mr Finnie’s name, and 12A, in Mr Greene’s name, are about the hypothecation of funds that relate to the disposal of land in the national forest estate. Mr Finnie’s amendment provides that such funds would be used solely for the purposes and functions that are set out in the bill; Mr Greene’s amendment goes even further and would restrict the use of the funds to buying land for forestry—the funds could not be used for any other function.

I understand the intentions behind amendments 12 and 12A, but I do not think it necessary to set out the position in primary legislation. There are more appropriate mechanisms for examining Government policy on disposals. As the committee recognises, it is current practice for Forest Enterprise Scotland to reinvest income in the national forest estate, enabling reconfiguration of the estate to meet strategic priorities, including new woodland creation. I point out that there is also investment in other, non-forestry purposes, such as recreation, tourism and services for people with mental health issues, therefore to restrict the use of funds to forestry would be unduly restrictive and is perhaps not what Mr Greene intended.

Forest Enterprise Scotland’s existing framework document sets out policy on disposals and acquisitions and the criteria for selection of land that is put up for sale. Following the committee’s recommendation at stage 1 and Mr Rumbles’s amendment 1, I intend that the overarching principles on disposals shall be set out in the Scottish forestry strategy, with further information in forestry and land Scotland’s framework document and corporate plan—which will be similar to Forest Enterprise Scotland’s corporate documentation. The forestry strategy and the new agency’s corporate plan will be subject to public consultation. That should provide sufficient reassurance that there will be appropriate scrutiny of the Government’s intentions in relation to disposals.

In addition, I am concerned that amendments 12 and 12A would unreasonably or artificially constrain the Government’s ability and scope to make judgments about the overall management of the nation’s public finances. Such judgments are, rightly, subject to parliamentary scrutiny on a regular basis. It is a widely recognised and appropriate approach to the management of Government budgets to retain the flexibility to deploy surpluses for other priorities—indeed, it might be necessary to allocate budget from elsewhere if the agency were subject to unpredicted financial pressures; it works both ways, and flexibility is key. Therefore, I ask Mr Finnie and Mr Greene not to move amendments 12 and 12A respectively.

We turn now to compulsory purchase powers. I state again that there is absolutely nothing unusual in having such powers. Compulsory purchase orders are part of the statutory landscape in Scotland and indeed Britain. Powers are held by a number of public bodies, and for a variety of purposes.

Due to the diligence of my officials, I know of 20 acts of Parliament that include such powers in Scotland. Of those, I note that around half were passed by Conservative Administrations. I have here a little list, which includes compulsory purchase powers that were set out by such Administrations under Mrs Thatcher and Mr Major, who were not noted land reform campaigners, as far as I recall. There are compulsory purchase powers in the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993, the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, the Electricity Act 1989, the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990, the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, the Housing Associations Act 1985 and the Environment Act 1995. I might have missed out a few acts. If so, I apologise for that infelicity. However, the point that I make is a serious one: the creation of compulsory purchase powers is a routine, ordinary aspect of the establishment of legislation. It is no more than that.

Committee members will recall the evidence that was given, I believe by Simon Hodge, at stage 1, that such powers, in respect of forestry, were set out in the 1967 act. Over the ensuing 50 years, they have been used on zero occasions. The controversy is in relation to not the forestry but the land management issue, but I suggest that the argument that I have set out—that such an approach is routinely deployed by Governments of all hues—should be seen as that, rather than as any desire on my part to start to act in a dictatorial fashion. I assure the committee that I have no intention of doing so, and I cannot imagine that it would be part of any ministerial actions.

It might be helpful if I set out the scope of the proposed power. Section 16(1)(b), as read with section 13, provides that the Scottish ministers

“may compulsorily acquire land that they require”

in order to exercise their duty to manage land

“for the purpose of furthering the achievement of sustainable development.”

Government amendment 38 has clarified that the “land” referred to includes

“land in the national forest estate that is not forested”,

as well as other non-forested land that the Scottish ministers have acquired or otherwise agreed to manage under the powers of the bill.

Section 16(1)(b) will not give ministers powers compulsorily to purchase land to address issues of sustainable land management where there is no connection to land that is already managed under the duty set out in section 13 of the bill. That is an important point. Ministers will be able to use the proposed power to purchase land only when that land is required in order for them to exercise an existing land management function under the bill. I have set out the technicalities to indicate that the precise wording of the powers is set out to constrain the potential exercise of the power in an inappropriate fashion.

The power has been provided in order to support the new duty that is placed on ministers by section 13 to manage non-forested land for the purpose of furthering the achievement of sustainable development. Around a third of the national forest estate is non-forested land and will be managed under the section 13 duty. The duty being placed on ministers in relation to such land is new, and I believe that it is prudent to take a CPO power that can support ministers in fulfilling that duty—for precisely the same reasons as committee members’ reasons for accepting that it is appropriate to have the power in respect of forest land, namely, that the power will exist as a backstop, to ensure that negotiations over, for example, a ransom strip, can successfully be brought to a conclusion. I remember that, at the previous stage, Mr Mason made that very point, in justification of the conferral of the powers.

Non-forested land in the estate is diverse and includes bogs, open mountain and farmland. Managing such land so as to further sustainable development will require ministers to consider a range of social, economic and environmental outcomes. It is not possible to say here exactly what those might be and how they might affect any particular piece of land. There might be issues with access to a site, management of a particular ecosystem or unlocking a piece of land’s economic potential. As I have set out, it is prudent to retain a power that can support the specific duty and that relates to land in respect of which the Scottish ministers will exercise land management duties. It is not intended to allow ministers to intervene in other situations.

It is also important to recognise the robust processes to which compulsory purchase powers are subject. The procedure for using the majority of CP powers is set out in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947; the bill provides for the use of that procedure for both of the section 16 compulsory purchase powers, ensuring that the process in the bill follows that for other compulsory purchase powers.

Because the exercise of compulsory purchase powers requires public notice of the intent to purchase and notices to be made to owners, lessees and occupiers, there is the opportunity for objections to be made. If necessary, a local inquiry can be held to weigh the order’s public benefit against the private interests of those with an interest in land, and ultimately, a challenge can be made to the Court of Session. This is, therefore, a robust process, which no acquiring authority, including Scottish ministers, would ever embark on lightly.

We recognise that the CPO process could be improved and modernised, and the Scottish Government is doing separate work on that in advance of legislation, including reviewing the current framework for preparing, confirming and implementing orders. We are drafting updated guidance for acquiring authorities and will be preparing updated and improved guidance for landowners, to improve transparency and confidence in the existing system.

Given the points that I have made about the scope of the power and robustness of the compulsory purchase process, I respectfully ask Mr Chapman to consider not moving amendment 39.

Stewart Stevenson

Is the cabinet secretary able to confirm that the Crichel Down rules will continue to apply to compulsory purchases made under these headings? In other words, if the land acquired by the Government for a particular purpose is not used for that purpose, will it be returned to the original owner?

Fergus Ewing

I have been told that the answer is yes. I am happy to provide that confirmation.

I hope that the additional information that I have provided in what I am afraid has been a rather long contribution about the various arguments, the whole backdrop to this and the existing checks and balances will lead members to decide that the Government can be supported on these matters.

Amendment 40 clarifies that the compulsory purchase powers in the bill include the power to acquire rights and interests in and over land. That flexibility will enable rights to be taken that fall short of outright ownership of the land—for example, a servitude right of vehicular access—and it will allow the creation of new rights and interests if reliance on an existing right or interest is not sufficient in the circumstances. There is precedent for such an approach in enabling acts such as the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, and I also point out that the exercise of the power to acquire rights or interests compulsorily is subject to the same high tests as exercising it to gain ownership. The committee will be familiar with the scenario of landlocked timber; back-stop powers of compulsory purchase have been recognised as a valid tool in the box, and amendment 40 adds to that toolbox by providing an additional option to outright purchase.

I thank you for your forbearance, convener.

John Finnie

Amendment 12 relates to section 17, which sets out the power to dispose of land, and its very simple aim is to ensure that funds raised as a result of disposals from the national forest estate are reinvested in that estate. Between 1999 and 2016, the repositioning programme for the national forest estate, which covered acquisitions and disposals, yielded a net profit of £59.3 million, and amendment 12 seeks to ensure that such profits are reinvested on behalf of the people of Scotland in securing sustainable management of the national forest estate, with the potential to create new native woodland, and acquiring additional outstanding examples of forest and woodland in Scotland and, importantly, securing them for posterity. Given that the amendment is entirely in line with the committee’s recommendation in its stage 1 report that income generated from disposals be reinvested in the national forest estate, I think it appropriate for the Government to include such a commitment in the bill.

I have heard what the cabinet secretary has had to say, so I am not expecting any agreement on this matter. Nevertheless, I will continue to engage on the issue. That said, I am going to press the issue today, as it was highlighted in our report. I hope to get a commitment for those matters to be included in the forest strategy, including details of the repositioning programme, so that they can be included in the consultation on the strategy and, importantly, be scrutinised by the Parliament.

I was not as animated as everyone else seemed to be about compulsory purchase orders. Appropriate checks and balances are in place, which continue to apply—I am relaxed about that, and about the powers relating to sustainable development. It has been argued that such powers are not used, but they are part of the range of options that are available.

The cabinet secretary and other members will be as familiar as I am with a very high-profile case in the Highlands in which a significant benefit to the public was being held back by a ransom strip. Fortunately, negotiations meant that a CPO did not have to be utilised, but the public good must be at the forefront. As I said, appropriate checks and balances are in place, so I support the cabinet secretary’s position on the powers.

The Convener

I call Jamie Greene to speak to amendment 12A and other amendments in the group.

Jamie Greene

There is much that I agree with in John Finnie’s comments about the use of revenues generated from the sale of land for forestry functions. My view is quite simple: the size of the forestry estate should not diminish in any way. However, I am nervous that the revenues achieved from the sale of land might be used to fill potential budget shortfalls or to fund the functions of the new division. In essence, the revenue generated from the sale of land should be used for the purchase of land for the planting of trees, to ensure that the size of our forestry estate does not diminish in any way. Therefore, amendment 12A goes further than John Finnie’s amendment 12 in proposing that capital from the sale of land be used for the purchase of land.

I will move on to other amendments in the group. On Peter Chapman’s amendments 39, 6 and 42, the cabinet secretary pointed out in great detail the compulsory purchase powers that other Governments in other jurisdictions have proposed. It is worth clarifying that we do not have any argument with that. In fact, we support the rollover of compulsory purchase powers from the Forestry Act 1967.

I understand that Mr Chapman’s proposed approach is that the compulsory purchase powers should be retained for the duties in section 9 but not for those in section 13. As a committee, we took a majority view in the stage 1 report that we were happy with that. Mr Chapman’s amendments simply reflect the view that was expressed in the report, so I hope that other committee members will stick to the agreed view and vote in favour of them.

Stewart Stevenson

I will address Mr Rumbles’s remarks about the decisions that we made at stage 1. He seems to suggest that instructions inform what SNP members do in this committee. The fact that SNP committee members voted on different sides of the argument at stage 1 is perhaps the evidence to the contrary. Of course, he who never changes his mind is unlikely to ever change anything. We will shortly see the results of my constructive discussions with my colleagues, but I cannot entirely predict what they might be.

When my granny died, I was minus 13 years old. I was told that she had said only one political thing in her life: never trust the Tories. On the subject of land, I adhere to that absolutely.

The Convener

Right. I am not sure that that was a great anecdote to trot out.

Richard Lyle

I have some comments that are not as bad as Stewart Stevenson’s.

Although Stewart Stevenson and I were on separate sides of the fence last time that we discussed the matter, I agree with him. This morning, I have recorded that I intend to press the Government to plant more trees as much as possible. I intend to stick to that. When I hear Mr Chapman continually vilifying the cabinet secretary because he has not planted more trees and then saying that he wants to tie the cabinet secretary’s hand behind his back in regard to compulsory purchase, I am appalled. It is inconsistent.

Jamie Greene

Will Richard Lyle give way?

The Convener

Are you prepared to, Richard?

Richard Lyle

Do you want to make an intervention, Mr Greene? Carry on. I will accept your intervention and then I will come back in.

The Convener

I ask you to do it through the chair.

Richard Lyle

Sorry. He did not clarify whether he wanted to intervene.

Jamie Greene

Mr Chapman’s amendment 6 pursues the rollover of the compulsory purchase powers for the purposes of section 9, which concerns the management of forestry land. That includes planting, and there is broad agreement that we would like there to be more planting. I am not making any political points, because there is consensus on that. The only thing that amendment 6 does is to exclude section 13 from compulsory purchase powers. That section is about the management of land to further sustainable development, which is not about planting.

Richard Lyle

I thank you for the intervention. However, I want the Government to do more and to plant more trees and I, for one, will not tie its hands behind its back. I intend to ensure that it plants more trees. Members who have consistently said that they want the Government to do that should do the same as me.

Rhoda Grant

I will vote against Peter Chapman’s amendments 39, 6 and 42. It is important to have compulsory purchase powers for sustainable development in the bill. That keeps it in line with other legislation, so it is right. However, I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments about reviewing the powers.

I support John Finnie’s amendment 12, because it is important to protect finance resulting from the sale of forestry and the like for reinvestment in forestry. I have some sympathy for Jamie Greene’s amendment 12A, which takes John Finnie’s approach a bit further. I am slightly worried that it might take it a bit too far in that it might result in activities that support sustainable forestry not being funded and, if there is a shortfall in the finance, that could hold forestry back. That is my one concern about amendment 12A and it would be useful if Jamie Greene would address that at some point.

Peter Chapman

I take umbrage at Richard Lyle’s comments about how I would be trying to tie the cabinet secretary’s hands. Nobody is suggesting that we do that in any way, shape or form. I want more trees to be planted and have always said so.

I am not saying that there should be no compulsory purchase powers. I am content to roll over the powers that are in the 1967 act. I made that clear as well. I object to widening the powers to cover sustainable development when no attempt has been made to justify that. It is a step too far and is not necessary. The cabinet secretary confirmed that, in the 50 years that ministers have had the powers, they have not used them, so, considering that fact, why on earth does he think that he needs any more?

As far as I am concerned, the 1967 act powers can remain but the widening of the powers to include sustainable development has not been proved to be necessary and, therefore, I object to it. That is what my amendments 6, 39 and 42 are about.

Gail Ross

A lot of reference has been made to the stage 1 report. I point out that, in recommendation 104, we said:

“the majority of the Committee is of the view that the Scottish Government is yet to provide sufficient justification for its proposed extension of compulsory purchase powers to cover sustainable development.”

However, in what the cabinet secretary said to the committee today, he provided sufficient justification for the extension of the powers, which is what the committee asked for.

The Convener

I will now bring myself in to speak. I will do so at two stages during the meeting, and this is the first one.

I support Jamie Greene’s amendment 12A, because we do not want diminution of the forest estate. The people of Scotland expect the forest estate to grow, and therefore it is fundamentally wrong to take money out of it by selling land and using that to fund the general running costs of the new body. I would therefore like the money to roll forward to be used for purchasing. Indeed, that is my understanding of the Parliament’s policy when it decided to allow the repositioning of the forest estate to take money from sales and put it back into purchasing estate. I believe that that gives people the surety that they need in relation to forestry, because forestry has a rolling aspect. Land without trees is purchased, if necessary, and trees are put on it. Once the trees are there and the safeguards are in place to ensure that they remain there, it is perfectly right for the Forestry Commission to sell that land and move on to the next bit. That approach will gradually increase the forest estate and forestry in Scotland, and amendment 12A allows for just that.

On the compulsory purchase powers, the cabinet secretary’s comments about previous legislation made me smile, because we are now in 2017 and a lot of the legislation that he mentioned was from way before the time when I became involved in politics. I declare that, as a surveyor, I have been involved in compulsory purchase powers and have some knowledge of them. I should also declare that I have an interest in a farm, for those who consider that important, although I do not think that it is important in relation to the bill. The compulsory purchase powers are deeply flawed as they are structured. I believe that they do not work very well and that they need to be completely reformed to make them fit for 2017.

Given that the compulsory purchase powers for forestry have never been used since the 1967 act came in, they are not that much of a threat. A lot has been made of the fact that threats have been made that they will be used, but I have never seen any evidence of that. When we pushed the officials who came to the committee, they said that there might have been one or two occasions on which they could have been used as a threat, but there is no clear evidence that they were. In this case, a threat does not particularly work because, under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, a ransom strip, which the cabinet secretary said he wanted to avoid, still has to be compensated for at its value. All that happens is that someone says that they want it, and they have to agree the value. According to the definition of open market value, which is what an acquisition is based on, a ransom strip has a value, and that has to be taken into account.

Therefore, I do not support rolling forward the 1967 act provisions into the bill, although I can see why it gives the cabinet secretary some confidence. That is why, as an individual, I am happy to see those in relation to forestry. However, in relation to other land, I do not see that it provides a benefit at all. The other land that the Forestry Commission has—the one third of its estate that is not forested—will not be benefited by the compulsory purchase powers. I do not see how that will work, because that land is managed in accordance with the forest estate. I do not see much requirement for that, so I will not vote in favour of it.

Having set out my position, I now withdraw from the debate and put my convener’s hat back on. I see that Claudia Beamish wants to come in. I ask her to do so briefly, so that I can pass back to the cabinet secretary.

Claudia Beamish

It is simply to reinforce the point, which the cabinet secretary has clarified, about the need for management of land to further the achievement of sustainable development. That applies to the list that the cabinet secretary gave earlier in this grouping, and to other areas such as agroforestry, which may fall more under the definition of sustainable development than strict forestry definitions. It is very important that we keep the sustainable development opportunity.

The Convener

Cabinet secretary, you have already spoken, but if you would like to come back briefly on any of the points that have been made, I am happy to let you in.

Fergus Ewing

I have enjoyed listening to the debate, and I had my opportunity earlier to set out the points in the way that I wished.

The Convener

Thank you. I call on Mike Rumbles to wind up and to say whether he wants to press or withdraw amendment 2.

Mike Rumbles

The minister eloquently outlined a number of acts over the years that have conferred compulsory purchase powers. He said that Parliaments have routinely given the powers to Government. We already know all of that, but it is good to be reminded of it, because that is exactly my point, which is that the Government has enough compulsory purchase powers already, and does not need any more. The 1967 powers have never been used, as we all know. Ministers of all parties always say that they would never want to gather further unnecessary powers, and the powers in the bill are unnecessary.

I do not focus on our current minister, who is an honourable man, but even he will accept that he will not be a minister forever.

Stewart Stevenson

Surely not. [Laughter.]

Mike Rumbles

In principle—this is about the principle of Parliament versus Government—it is not good for Parliament to give unnecessary executive powers to ministers. Over the years, I have asked questions about that to ministers of different parties—whose civil servants, by the way, always want them to have unnecessary powers—and they normally say that they simply want to future proof legislation. They say, “Who knows how things are going to change? We need the powers to future proof.” Well, Parliament should be wary of the Government’s future proofing.

Stewart Stevenson said that I said or implied that some members of the committee received instructions on how to vote on the issue from the Government. I would never say that. To repeat for the avoidance of doubt, I said that some members of the committee had received guidance on how to vote. There is a great deal of difference between instructions and guidance. The Government is perfectly entitled to issue guidance to MSPs, and it is for MSPs to choose what they do with that guidance. It is up to individual members round the committee table to decide for themselves, and they must live with the decisions that they make. I said that it is up to colleagues on the committee to vote the way that they wish to vote.

As to the evidence on the subject, I was a bit shocked to hear that there is new evidence. I have seen nothing, and nothing has changed in the evidence. I have not seen any new evidence brought to us by the minister that should affect our decision at stage 1. However, I am a realist, if nothing else, and I know what the numbers amount to. It is disappointing to realise that the recommendations in the stage 1 report might not be followed. They were good recommendations, although they were not accepted by all members of the committee. Of course people have different views, but it was a genuine compromise and attempt to do the right thing by Parliament and Government. I put the situation down to the Government guidance that has been received by some members. However, I repeat that it is guidance, and it is up to every individual member to decide what they should do.

The Convener

Do you want to press or withdraw amendment 2?

Mike Rumbles

I want to press it.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Amendment 22 not moved.

The Convener

Because of the length of time that it has taken to get to this stage, I propose a five-minute suspension to allow members a comfort break.

The Convener

The next group of amendments is on delegation to community bodies. Amendment 23, in the name of Richard Lyle, is grouped with amendments 43, 132, 44, 45 and 110.

Richard Lyle

During stage 1, the committee heard evidence from a number of stakeholders that the provisions in the bill relating to delegation of land management functions to community bodies, in particular sections 18, 19 and 20, are at best unnecessary and at worst will introduce additional complexity and bureaucracy for groups that seek to get involved in land management. That view was expressed in the context of the commencement in January this year of part 5 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, which deals with asset transfer. We also heard concerns that the definition of “community body” in the bill is different from that in other community empowerment legislation—notably, the 2015 act—which, potentially, will cause confusion.

The cabinet secretary for rural economy assured the committee during his stage 1 evidence that officials were aware of and were looking into the potential overlap between the bill and asset transfer legislation. On 3 November, the Scottish Government gave a response to the committee’s stage 1 report, in which the cabinet secretary confirmed that officials were considering the matter

“with a view to bringing forward any necessary amendments at Stage 2”.

In the event, we have seen no amendments from the Government. I refer the cabinet secretary to the views of key stakeholders, who have advised that the provisions are unnecessary and should be removed from the bill. I consider that the stakeholders are right, so my amendments seek to leave out sections 18, 19 and 20. Existing legislation—namely, the asset transfer provisions under the 2015 act—delivers the necessary outcomes for communities. Members should note that amendment 44 seeks to remove section 19: agreement to it would therefore make Jamie Greene’s amendment 132, which seeks to amend that section, unnecessary.

I move amendment 23.

Jamie Greene

As Richard Lyle just pointed out, the removal of section 19 would negate the need for my amendment 132. However, we have given some careful thought to the matter. I was a little bit surprised to see Richard Lyle’s amendments, which are small in wording but huge in effect: they would take out all references to community bodies from the bill.

Mr Lyle mentioned the ambiguity around the definition of “community body”. Amendment 132 seeks to resolve that by strengthening the definition, saying that “community body” would have the same meaning as it has in the 2015 act. That clarity would strengthen that whole area of the bill—sections 18, 19 and 20.

I am yet to be convinced or persuaded that we should support removal of sections 18, 19 and 20, so I am keen to hear more over the course of the debate on this group of amendments. For that reason, I am minded to maintain that my amendment 132 would strengthen the definition of “community body”. I hope that members accept that and that they will listen with great interest to why the sections should be removed.

Fergus Ewing

I thank Richard Lyle for lodging amendments 23, 43 to 45 and 110, and am content to support them. In consequence, I do not support Mr Greene’s amendment 132; I think that he understands that it will be negated if Mr Lyle’s amendments are accepted by the committee. I also thank the members of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, members of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee and many stakeholders for their scrutiny of the provisions and their insightful suggestions for improvement.

I signalled to the committee during stage 1 that officials were considering the provisions on delegation of land management functions to community bodies—specifically, how those interact with existing community empowerment law. I have concluded that the provisions in the bill duplicate and do not enhance law elsewhere on community empowerment. Further, I agree with points that were made during stage 1 evidence by the Community Woodlands Association that there is a risk that the existence of the provisions might unnecessarily complicate the landscape for delivery of community empowerment objectives, including for community bodies themselves.

I am content that the asset transfer regime under part 5 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 can be relied on to deliver the policy objectives behind sections 18, 19 and 20 of the bill, and that those sections can therefore be removed. I note that a wide range of stakeholders, including the aforementioned Community Woodlands Association and Community Land Scotland, recommended that course of action, and that it is supported by the forestry sector, including Scottish Land & Estates.

I note the intention behind amendment 132, which is to deliver better integration between the bill and the 2015 act. As I have indicated, I am sympathetic to that outcome, but consider that it can best be achieved through removing sections 18, 19 and 20 altogether, rather than through their retention and amendment. For that reason I do not support amendment 132.

There is a strong track record of community involvement in managing forestry, and I wish to see that continue as we complete devolution of forestry. In January this year, Forest Enterprise Scotland launched the new community asset transfer scheme—or CATS—by implementing part 5 of the 2015 act. That builds on the highly successful national forest land scheme, which predated the statutory asset transfer regime and delivered 42 sales totalling 17,000 acres, including 31 sales to communities totalling more than 10,000 acres. The first successful request under CATS was announced last month, and a further 20 requests are in the pipeline. It is encouraging that the Scottish Government’s policies are giving people more control over decisions that affect them, and enabling communities to shape their individual and collective futures.

I therefore support the amendments in the name of Richard Lyle.

Richard Lyle

I will keep this short. The cabinet secretary has just made most of the comments that I was going to make. Therefore, I intend to press my amendments in the group, so I ask members to support them.

Amendment 23 agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

After section 6

Amendment 10 moved—[Peter Chapman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 10 disagreed to.

Amendment 130 moved—[John Finnie].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 130 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Abstentions

Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 7, Against 3, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 130 agreed to.

The Convener

The next group of amendments is on the involvement of persons with an interest in forestry. Amendment 129, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is the only amendment in the group.

Claudia Beamish

Amendment 129 aims to preserve the involvement and inclusion of people on the ground in forestry and land management. The provision would follow section 6, which is entitled “Duty to have regard to forestry strategy”, and ensure that people who have an interest in forestry are involved in delivery and acting out of the functions of the bill by ministers. Agreement to the amendment would create a requirement to involve people

“with ... knowledge ... of securing sustainable economic benefits ... sustainable forest management ... silviculture ... land management”

and “environmental” and “biodiversity issues”. Amendment 129 would also require “consultation with persons” and representative organisations, such as unions.

Amendment 129 demonstrates the scope of social, environmental and economic functions that will be delivered by the Forestry Commission, and is designed to ensure that each of the six areas that it lists, which are vital tenets of forestry management, are taken into consideration.

Scotland has exceptionally knowledgeable and experienced people in its forestry sector, as I am sure that we all agree. My amendment 129 would enshrine their inclusion in forestry policy, regardless of the new arrangements for forestry organisations after devolution of forestry.

I ask members to consider supporting amendment 129 so that the matters that I have mentioned will be included in the bill.

I move amendment 129.

Stewart Stevenson

I have a technical issue with how the amendment is cast. It says:

“take steps to ensure that such arrangements involve”.

I really have no idea what is meant by “involve”, in this context. Does it mean that we need someone under each of the subparagraphs to be on a board of some kind? Does it mean that the minister simply has to have the people in for dinner and listen to them once every 50 years? Is it something in between? I am very uncertain about what “involve” might mean.

I repeat my regular rail against use of lists. Claudia Beamish mentioned unions when she spoke to her amendment. Unions, per se, do not appear in the list, but I accept that there will be unions that have the expertise that she is looking for. I guess that we will hear from the cabinet secretary once again about the difficulties for Governments in identifying people

“with experience in or knowledge of”

the listed areas.

Jamie Greene

Stewart Stevenson’s comments hark back to the cabinet secretary’s comments about the ambiguity in interpreting

“persons with experience in or knowledge of”.

It is incredibly difficult to do that.

Amendment 129 includes other vague terms, such as

“consultation with persons ... who have an interest in”.

Lots of people have

“an interest in forestry and sustainable forest management”

but how would we define what is meant by “interest”? Stewart Stevenson made a similar point about the term “involve”. What is involvement? In any case, the amendment might restrict the minister in his ability to discharge his duties under the act. Therefore, I am unable to support amendment 129.

Fergus Ewing

I thank Claudia Beamish for lodging amendment 129. I fully recognise the importance of ensuring that people who have the right professional skills, knowledge and experience are engaged in development and delivery of forestry in Scotland, but I am not persuaded that the amendment would deliver that outcome.

The bill includes suitable provision for how ministers must discharge their functions. Those are set out in part in section 6, which requires ministers to

“have regard to the forestry strategy when”

exercising their forestry functions. Amendment 129 overlaps with that requirement.

Furthermore, although the bill is mainly about management of forestry, it also covers management of land for sustainable development, which amendment 129 does not recognise. As drafted, amendment 129 would result in a requirement for wide consultation on all the activities that are covered by the bill, including ministers’ wider land management role of managing non-forested land and the more mundane regulatory activity for forestry. In neither scenario would the effect of the amendment be practical or appropriate.

It is vital that we maintain professional expertise and skills as we complete the devolution of forestry, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to make that absolutely clear for all the people who are listening or observing and for the record for the future. I have previously stated that, in the new structures for forestry, I wish to expand on the existing skills development mechanisms within Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland, and to continue to involve foresters and other professionals in the discharge of the Scottish Government’s forestry functions.

I am sure that it is an unintended omission, but amendment 129 makes no reference to involving persons with experience in or knowledge of community ownership or involvement in forestry. I point that out to highlight the inherent risks of including an exclusive list in legislation. Lists cannot be comprehensive, as stakeholders including Confor have noted, so the inclusion of such a list might date the bill.

I support the arguments that Mr Stevenson and Mr Greene have made about the technicalities, and I think that the use of the word “arrangements” is vague, because it is not clear what those arrangements would be, when they would be made or how they could be discharged. However, those are technical points.

I share the sentiments that have been expressed, but I ask members to resist amendment 129 on the basis that it is unnecessary and unnecessarily restrictive.

The Convener

I ask Claudia Beamish to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 129.

Claudia Beamish

I have listened carefully to the discussion, and I take on board Stewart Stevenson’s point about the use of the word “involve”. We do not want to get too tied up in definitions. I also take Jamie Greene’s point about the phrase “experience in or knowledge of”.

Amendment 129 resulted from my being approached by a range of groups who have concerns about the need to be open as we move forward to the devolved arrangements, so that the new body will not be subsumed within Victoria Quay and will have a presence throughout Scotland across a range of skills and professions. I take the cabinet secretary’s point that reference to people with experience in or knowledge of community ownership is missing from my amendment. Having been involved in consideration of what is now the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2016, I know that involvement of such people is very important, so that was, indeed, an omission.

To a degree, amendment 129 is a probing amendment. It is very important to many stakeholders, including unions, that their interests be taken into account. I certainly do not want to create a cumbersome process. I take the cabinet secretary’s point that my amendment might do that, because it does not make it clear what ministers would be obliged to consult on or how far that process would go.

I seek to withdraw amendment 129 on the understanding that—if I have got this right—the cabinet secretary has put on the record the fact that it is important that a range of skills, professions and organisations be involved in moving forward with a positive and sustainable forestry strategy, in the context of the new devolved powers.

Amendment 129, by agreement, withdrawn.

Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.

After section 8

The Convener

The next group of amendments is on co-ordination and co-operation in plant health responsibilities. Amendment 131, in the name of Jamie Greene, is the only amendment in the group.

Jamie Greene

Amendment 131 concerns the duty that is placed on ministers to co-ordinate and co-operate on plant health responsibilities. It is my view that, given the cross-border nature of plant health on an island, the bill should contain additional wording that reflects that and places an additional duty on ministers to take it into account.

Although I understand that the bill cannot mandate the Scottish ministers to ensure that a memorandum of understanding would be agreed or signed by secretaries of state or ministers of other Parliaments, I would like us to agree wording that ensures that they “take all reasonable steps” to achieve an MOU and that they set before Parliament a report to the effect that they have taken reasonable steps to achieve what is set out in subsection (1) of the new section that amendment 131 seeks to insert. The Scottish ministers should also update Parliament as to any arrangements or agreements that result from such an MOU. I hope that the cabinet secretary will find that to be a constructive addition to the bill. My understanding is that, if it is not put in the legislation, there would be no mandate for the minister so to act, and I hope that that will be taken into account.

I move amendment 131.

Stewart Stevenson

When I look at the words that are in the amendment, namely that ministers must take all reasonable steps

“to ensure that they agree”,

I just do not see that we can ensure that they will agree, so the wording that is before us is not capable of being delivered assuredly. On that basis, I cannot support the amendment.

Mike Rumbles

Again, I disagree with my esteemed colleague Stewart Stevenson. He focused on the word “ensure”. That is not the purpose of the amendment, which is to have ministers “take all reasonable steps”. Who could object to that? To emphasise and put the focus on the word “ensure” is erroneous. The amendment says simply that the Scottish ministers should “take all reasonable steps”, so I will support it.

Fergus Ewing

On the day of the stage 1 debate, I announced that agreement had been reached with my counterparts in the UK and Welsh Governments on sharing responsibility for important cross-border forestry functions. One Government will co-ordinate delivery of each function on behalf of all three. Under that agreement, certain forestry plant health responsibilities that are primarily linked to trade will be led by the UK Government. Those include inspections at ports and airports of wood and wood products; maintaining a register of premises for forest products and timber; and regulation for identification and control of seeds and cuttings. Other tree health functions will continue to be carried out separately in each country. For example, surveys and monitoring for tree pests in Scotland will continue to be co-ordinated here.

I would argue that that work, which was achieved after a great deal of positive interaction with the UK Government and the Welsh devolved Administration, perhaps constitutes “reasonable steps”. Therefore I reassure Mr Rumbles that reasonable steps have already been trodden, if I might put it that way. While they have not resulted in a formal written agreement, there is an agreement in principle, which we expect will be progressed to full agreement prior to the law coming into force. Therefore I do not accept that the current arrangements for co-operation are deficient. They are carried out in an extra-parliamentary way between the Scottish Government and the other Government bodies involved.

In addition, I do not believe that amendment 131 properly reflects the fact that completing devolution of forestry is one of the principal drivers of the bill. I anticipate that there will always be close co-operation between Administrations on these islands on matters such as plant health. Indeed, I have emphasised the importance of that. I know that many stakeholders are keen that that should be the case and also keen to hear me say so and to know that the message is being delivered, understood and acted on by the Scottish Government and other Governments in these islands.

I welcome the opportunity to reconfirm and restate that, because people listening to the meeting will welcome it. Plant and tree disease respects no borders. These are very serious matters and tackling them effectively is one of the absolute essentials of sustainable forestry management. These matters can be most effectively tackled on a cross-border basis.

However, there is a different point here. As far as I know, what Mr Greene seeks to do is unprecedented. He seeks to place in statute a provision that we must somehow secure a memorandum of agreement with other bodies. My legal adviser informs me that there is no other statute in which that approach has been taken. It would perhaps detract from devolution if our law sought to fetter our scope in respect of devolved matters such as forestry. The approach that is being suggested might serve to detract from the very nature of devolved power.

I reassure Mr Greene that arrangements are in place to ensure co-operation on plant health. For example, we maintain a UK plant health risk register, which is reviewed monthly by the UK plant health risk group, and we take part in biannual UK plant health co-ordination meetings. We published the Scottish plant health strategy in March 2016, which sets out measures to safeguard agriculture, horticulture, forestry and the wider environment from pests and diseases from 2016 to 2021. I hope that that will reassure Mr Greene and other members of the committee, because it is consistent with “Protecting Plant Health, A Plant Biosecurity Strategy for Great Britain”, which was published in 2014 and was signed off by Scottish and other GB plant health ministers.

So, you see, Mr Greene, I am pleased to say that we are a wee bit ahead of you. We have been doing all that already, and we will continue to do it, but not on the basis of something that is inserted into Scottish Parliament legislation.

Jamie Greene

I thank the cabinet secretary and other members for their feedback on the amendment. However, there were perhaps some contradictions in the cabinet secretary’s response to the comments that I made. He acknowledged that plant health respects no borders. In that vein, far from seeking to detract from devolution, the amendment would make an important and necessary addition to the bill. I understand that positive and constructive work has already been done with the various Administrations.

I refer back to a point that was made previously. Putting the provision in the bill would future proof the concept. It is all very well to say that current Administrations have agreed orally to take this issue seriously and to work together constructively, but we are talking about three different Administrations that have their own parliamentary cycles. I want to ensure that the concept is future proofed so that, regardless of who is running those Administrations, that good work continues beyond the current three Administrations’ parliamentary terms.

For that reason, I am not swayed by the cabinet secretary’s argument that, given that good work has been done on this matter, we should let it rest. I will press amendment 131 to ensure that future Administrations take the issue of cross-border plant health seriously. As Mr Rumbles pointed out, all the amendment does is ask Scottish ministers to “take all reasonable steps”, which I do not think is an unreasonable request.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 131 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 131 disagreed to.

The Convener

The next group is on deer management. Amendment 11, in the name of John Finnie, is the only amendment in the group.

John Finnie

Amendment 11 proposes to insert into the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 a duty of deer management to ensure sustainable forest management.

It is important that I give some background. The population modelling is not exact, but it is thought that there are between 85,000 and 100,000 roe, sika and fallow deer in private forests and 45,000 in the national forest estate, and 45,000 to 60,000 red deer in private forests and 40,000 to 45,000 in the national forest estate. The Forestry Commission does 30 per cent of all culling, at a cost to the taxpayer of £5 million a year.

As we said earlier, woodlands are deer habitats, and new woodlands will create new deer habitats. It should be the responsibility of all owners of private forests to put in place arrangements to manage the deer that live in their forests and woodlands. That is important for the future timber crop and for the biodiversity value of the woodlands. There is also the question of the impact of deer on adjacent land, for example by causing damage to agricultural crops and increasing the risk of road traffic accidents.

There is a legal requirement on us to protect the forest asset. Amendment 11 would ensure sustainable forest management by incorporating a duty of deer management, which would be discharged through plans to manage deer and arrangements to carry out that plan, which would also reduce some of the damaging impacts that deer can have. There is also a view that the duty will create economic opportunities with the letting of deer stalking to qualified people and venison sales generating income.

Such arrangements already exist in some places and, if amendment 11 is accepted, we will ensure, through the bill, that suitable arrangements are put in place for all woodlands. It would help to drive a step change, particularly with regard to lowland deer management. It would also be in line with the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee’s report on the subject.

I move amendment 11.

Mike Rumbles

I do not support the amendment on the ground that we have not taken any evidence on the subject. We talked about the issue when we discussed Claudia Beamish’s amendment 123. If we wanted to go down that route, we could have taken a good deal of evidence from landowners and land occupiers, but we have not done so. It would be unhelpful to make such a substantial amendment at what I consider to be the last minute and without bringing people to the committee to give evidence on the issue.

The amendment says:

“The Scottish Ministers must by regulations make provision requiring owners and occupiers of forest land to take such steps as may be specified in the regulations”.

That would give ministers unspecified powers.

In subsection (5) of the amendment, there is a requirement to lay before Parliament

“a draft Scottish statutory instrument containing the first regulations under subsection (1).”

A legitimate question is: how many instruments has this committee rejected? I cannot think of any. We cannot amend statutory instruments, so the power of the committee and the Parliament is restricted.

It would be entirely wrong to put such a provision into a forestry bill. It is a legitimate subject but we should have taken evidence on it. We have not done so—we decided not to go down that route—so it would be entirely wrong to support such a last-minute change at stage 2.

Stewart Stevenson

Mike Rumbles asked whether any statutory instruments have been rejected. I am not sure whether the committee has rejected any, but I have been involved in rejecting an affirmative instrument—I think. I need to check that, as it might have been a negative instrument; I cannot quite remember as it was a long time ago. However, Mike Rumbles is right that that does not happen very often. Instruments are not even challenged very often. Nonetheless, Parliament decides on SSIs just as it decides on primary legislation.

On the substance of the amendment, I do not disagree in any way with John Swinney about the need to manage deer in forests—

Gail Ross

It was not John Swinney.

The Convener

I confirm that. I think that you mean John Finnie.

Stewart Stevenson

What did I say?

The Convener

For the record, I note that John Swinney is not here.

Stewart Stevenson

I beg your pardon. John Swinney is in India and John Finnie is in front of me.

I agree with the underlying principles of John Finnie’s amendment 11. My difficulty—I am open to hearing more about this issue—is with what happens if one manages only one part of the ecosystem and not what is going on in the neighbouring areas. For example, adjacent estates take different views on their deer management policies because they have different shooting policies that they make money off. If we create a hole in the ecosystem so that there are fewer deer, other deer simply move in. The proposal is to separate forests off from an overall strategy to manage deer populations, and I would want to hear arguments that suggest that that would be of assistance. That is my concern about amendment 11.

Peter Chapman

I concur with what Mike Rumbles and Stewart Stevenson have said, because I am against what amendment 11 proposes. We all know that deer management is an issue as far as trees are concerned, but there are deer management arrangements in place and the rules and regulations are well known. The bill is about trees, not deer, so I do not see the need for amendment 11.

Not everybody likes this, but it is a way of life: one way to manage deer is to fence off the trees. There are therefore other ways forward. Amendment 11 is not necessary and the bill is the wrong place for what it proposes. Rules and regulations for deer management are already in place and are well known, so the proposal in amendment 11 has no place in the bill.

Richard Lyle

I say to John Finnie, who is sitting beside me, that I am sorry, but I cannot support his amendment 11. It has been put to me that, under what amendment 11 proposes, forest owners could face penalties if they do not take measures to control deer, and landowners could be liable for new penalties if they choose to plant trees, which would tend to discourage afforestation and integrated land use by increasing disparity in regulation. I believe that it is in the interests of forest owners to control deer, but other measures should be used to tackle deer numbers, and they should be co-operative rather than punitive. I therefore cannot support the amendment in the name of my good friend and colleague John Finnie.

Rhoda Grant

I have sympathy for amendment 11. However, what it proposes is probably not necessary for commercial forestry, because deer would have to be controlled anyway in a commercial forest—there are no two ways about that. I have more sympathy with amendment 11 in relation to native woodland. We can encourage native woodland, but there are not many commercial uses for it. People might plant native woodland because it is aesthetically pleasing but leave it and not manage it properly. If we are going to manage, cultivate and use native woodland, there must be a degree of deer management. However, I am not sure whether the bill is the place for what amendment 11 proposes. Before I make up my mind about amendment 11, I will listen with interest to what the cabinet secretary says and his proposals for what the amendment seeks to achieve.

Claudia Beamish

I highlight again what I said about deer management when we discussed my amendment 123. The Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee wrote to this committee to outline concerns about deer management, as it has done in relation to biodiversity and a number of other matters. Deer management has therefore been highlighted as a concern, although I take the point that this committee has not taken direct evidence on the issue.

John Finnie gave a clear argument about not only how complex the deer management issue is but how important it is, particularly in the context of forestry. In the previous session of Parliament, I was a member of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee, which took a lot of evidence on deer management, so I know that there are areas of Scotland where deer management groups are not working satisfactorily. There could well be merit in having in the bill the provisions that amendment 11 would introduce, or in introducing at stage 3 something else that would recognise the significance of deer management in relation to forestry and native woodland, about which Rhoda Grant made an important point.

Although I do not have a vote, I wanted to highlight the significance of the issue in relation to the future of our forestry. I look forward to hearing the cabinet secretary’s comments.

Jamie Greene

It is absolutely right to address this important issue but, like other members, I am not convinced that the bill is the place to do that. Amendment 11 talks about further regulations and about penalties as a result of those regulations, but it does not go into any great detail on what those regulations might look like. I am happy to be corrected, but I suspect that the detail would come through in such secondary legislation. Indeed, the amendment opens a huge can of worms, and I am not convinced that we have taken full account of the consequences.

Also, we have taken very limited evidence on the subject. We have had representations on this important matter but before adding something as substantive as amendment 11 to the bill, I would have expected the committee to have taken far more evidence and to have discussed it fully and properly, as the subject rightfully deserves. As a committee, it is an issue that we should look at, but I do not think that inserting the provisions in amendment 11 in the bill at this stage is the right way to address the problem.

Fergus Ewing

We all want forests and woodland to be managed sustainably and the Scottish Government is in no doubt that effective deer management is part of that, as many members have argued. However, there are technical and policy reasons why I and Roseanna Cunningham, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, cannot support amendment 11.

On the policy, members will be aware that deer management has been comprehensively reviewed and discussed over the past year. Scottish Natural Heritage’s deer review was published in November last year, and the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee’s report on deer management was published in April this year. Both reports reached broadly similar conclusions on the state of deer management—that good progress has been made, but that significant further effort is required.

My colleague Roseanna Cunningham set out the Scottish Government’s response to the reports in an answer to a parliamentary question on 29 June. As part of that answer, Ms Cunningham stated:

“We intend to set up an independent expert group to examine and develop solutions to barriers to effective deer management in the uplands and a separate panel under the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 to look at lowland deer management.

We will ask SNH to report on progress on deer management in 2019. We will be looking to see effective deer management that protects the public interest ... If the review does not find sufficient progress with these objectives, then we would have no alternative but to consider fundamental changes to the framework for deer management in Scotland.”—[Written Answers, 29 June 2017; S5W-10023.]

Having set up that independent group and given notice that we will look at making fundamental changes if there has not been sufficient progress by 2019, I believe that it would not be sensible to cut across either the work of the group—which was set up following parliamentary scrutiny—or the further efforts that will be required.

Deer management should not be treated in a piecemeal fashion. We have given the deer management sector as a whole, including forest and woodland owners and managers, a clear indication of what is required and a timescale, and we have been clear about the consequences if sufficient progress fails to be made. That is the approach that the Scottish Government has taken, which I understood had broad support.

Confor and Scottish Land & Estates agree with the Scottish Government’s position that amendment 11 should be resisted. They both favour co-operative approaches to tackling the issue over legislation that has the effect of singling out forest owners and managers.

There are also some technical reasons why I cannot support amendment 11. We do not think it appropriate to support an amendment that compels ministers to make regulations using the affirmative procedure. The provision is very broad and gives wide latitude regarding the content of the regulations; at the same time, it appears to indicate that ministers should create new penalties for failure to comply with those as yet unidentified regulations.

We need to be very careful about the creation of new penalties and potential criminal offences. It is vital that we are as specific as possible about the behaviour that we are criminalising—if that is the intention—including who the offence will apply to and what the appropriate penalties are. We would also expect Parliament to have an opportunity to scrutinise those aspects—usually through primary legislation. I agree with Mr Rumbles’s analysis that, had the committee intended to cover that as being relevant to the bill, it should really have consulted on it prior to stage 1 and taken evidence on it.

I understand the sincerity and commitment behind the views expressed by Mr Finnie and Ms Beamish. However, for all the reasons that I have given and although I understand the intentions of the members involved, I urge John Finnie not to press his amendment and, if he does, other members not to support it.

John Finnie

I am grateful to members for their contributions. We did have evidence: we heard from the convener of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, and there were references to deer in the submissions that we received. Mr Rumbles said that amendment 11 was unhelpful and last minute, but stage 2 is the first opportunity that we have to lodge amendments, and amendment 11 has been lodged in good faith.

The statutory instruments will have to be judged on their individual merits—

Mike Rumbles

My point, which the cabinet secretary reiterated, was that although nobody doubts that deer management is a really important issue, if it was our intent to amend the bill in that way, it would have been really helpful to question witnesses on the issue during stage 1. We could have interrogated everybody and come to a proper conclusion. In my view, doing it in this way is not the best way to do it.

John Finnie

I note your comments. However, you know the volume of evidence that we get and that only a very small percentage is scrutinised around the committee table.

Peter Chapman talked about the bill being about trees, but it is for that reason that we need to consider the negative impact of deer on trees. The comments about native woodland were welcome.

The approach is not piecemeal—and I note that an earlier amendment was about having an overarching approach. I also note members’ comments and the cabinet secretary’s willingness to continue to engage on the matter. If we can add this issue to two other items that are now on that agenda with the aim of understanding how our concerns—which are held in good faith, notwithstanding all the good work that is going on—can be addressed, I will not press my amendment.

Amendment 11, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 9—Management of forestry land

Amendments 24 to 26 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

Section 10—Meaning of “forestry land”

Amendments 27 to 31 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

Section 11—Meaning of “national forest estate”

Amendments 32 to 35 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

Section 12—Duty to publish description of forestry land

The Convener

The next group of amendments is on the Scottish ministers’ duty to publish maps. Amendment 36, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 36A and 37.

Fergus Ewing

Amendments 36 and 37 in my name are part of the suite of amendments to the land management part of the bill that have been lodged in response to requests for clarity on the land that will be managed by the Scottish ministers under the duties in sections 9 and 13.

Section 12 places a duty on the Scottish ministers to publish a description of the forestry land that they manage. The purpose of the duty is to provide transparency on the land that is to be managed under the section 9 duty to manage land for the purposes of sustainable forest management.

In consequence of the amendments to sections 9 and 13, including the stipulation that the non-forested part of the national forest estate is to be managed under the section 13 duty, I have concluded that the transparency duty should apply to land that is managed under the section 9 and the section 13 land management duties, not just the former. Amendment 36 seeks to make that extension.

Furthermore, as is set out in the explanatory notes to the bill, the intention is that the section 12 duty will be delivered via an online mapping tool. In the interests of providing clarity on what is meant by the word “description” in the section 12 duty, amendment 36 makes it clear that the duty is to publish a map. The map will provide the associated forestry inventory data.

Forest Enterprise Scotland currently publishes detailed annual snapshots of inventory data for Scotland’s national forest estate as open data online. Therefore, detailed land use data for the whole of the national forest estate, which covers the forested and the open areas, is available online for download, scrutiny and analysis by interested parties at any time, and it will continue to be made available.

Amendment 37 seeks to change the placement of the transparency duty in the bill so that it falls under section 13, thereby reflecting the extension delivered by amendment 36.

I do not support Andy Wightman’s amendment 36A. As I have said, the purpose of the section 12 duty is to provide clarity about the land that is managed by the Scottish ministers. It is right that there should be transparency about that, but amendment 36A would fundamentally change the scope of part 3, which is about the management of land, not the ownership of land.

Amendment 36A would duplicate the role of the keeper of the registers of Scotland and would cut across established arrangements to complete the land register of Scotland and to provide public information on Scotland’s forests and woodland. It would also place an uncosted and, in all probability, extremely substantial financial burden on the Scottish ministers, on which there has been no consultation whatever. No estimated costings have been provided, and the work that would be involved would entirely duplicate work that is being carried out by Registers of Scotland.

I draw committee members’ attention to the views of two of the organisations whose members are working hard to complete the land register. Scottish Land & Estates says that the amendment is unnecessary, as there is already a process of land registration under way in Scotland that will fulfil the objective. Confor says that legislation on land ownership should apply to all types of land equally, and should be dealt with under different legislation. It also says that the decision to plant trees should not be influenced by consideration of what information would have to be publicised, which would not be required if the land was left without trees.

The keeper is working to complete the land register by 2024, and to have public land registered by 2019. Information on Scotland’s forest and woodland cover will continue to be made available to the public. I can see no merit in cutting across those established arrangements, so I urge members not to support amendment 36A.

I move amendment 36.

The Convener

I call Andy Wightman to speak to and move amendment 36A, and to speak to the other amendments in the group.

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

I lodged amendment 36A with two purposes in mind. First, I want to extend the duty to publish information to include “other forest land”. That is in the context of the long title of the bill, which is a bill

“to make provision about Scottish Ministers’ functions in relation to the management of forestry land and other land”.

Secondly, I want to improve the availability of information on the characteristics, nature and ownership of forestry land in Scotland. We have an ambitious programme to expand forestry cover. Although much of that will be done by the private sector, there is little, if any, data to inform policy that would best achieve those goals.

In comparison with other European countries that publish extensive data about non-state-owned forest land, data is very scarce in Scotland. In 2006-07, the United Nations Economic Commission on Europe, together with the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, conducted an inquiry into private forest ownership in Europe. It collected demographic data on owners, including gender and so on, but the UK provided no data for that question. The UK also offered no data on the status of owners, their residency and their objectives.

According to the Forestry Commission, the data that the UK supplied to the UN Economic Commission on Europe on 27 July 2006 were estimates, which in turn were derived from a survey that had been carried out UK-wide as long ago as 1977—40 years ago—and they could not be broken down by country.

Therefore, officially we know nothing about ownership patterns, owners’ motivations and the characteristics of the private sector. It is my contention that we need to know more about that to better inform policy. My policy goal would be to have a proper annual return and survey so that we know that information. The most straightforward way to make the amendment is to amend section 12. I understand the cabinet secretary’s comments that, technically, it should perhaps not amend that section. If he is minded to consider the purpose behind the amendment and put it in an appropriate place, I would be happy to have that consultation with him.

Finally, the amendment does not duplicate any work that the Registers of Scotland is doing. It is not about determining ownership; it is about the publication of information, data and analysis to better inform policy.

I move amendment 36A.

Stewart Stevenson

Andy Wightman properly noted that the long title refers to

“forestry land and other land”.

The cabinet secretary’s amendment 36 refers to “forested land”, as distinct from “forestry land”. I am not at all clear what “other forest land”, referred to in amendment 36A, actually means. Is it something beyond what in amendment 36 is “forested land”?

I am also left a little unclear as to how one would identify some of the information that amendment 36A requires without there being a right to access “forest land”, as it is called in the amendment, to establish the facts that it requires to be published. I am not sure that there is an access provision to enable anyone to achieve that.

I know and respect absolutely Andy Wightman’s very long-held interest in establishing the ownership of land in Scotland, and I agree with him on that matter. However, the practical issue is already emerging that, although the land register is making progress, it will be fundamentally pretty difficult to complete the transfer from the register of sasines to the land register on the timescales that are being considered. That will be particularly difficult where private land is concerned, because the associated costs fall on private land owners.

Subsection 5 of the amendment seeks to commit the Government to a two-year cycle of publishing maps. That would be extremely challenging. If I recall correctly, the Ordnance Survey works on a five-year cycle because it is not broadly thought that a two-year cycle could work, at least on the terms that the amendment appears to suggest.

I echo the cabinet secretary in saying that although the objectives of the amendment are perfectly fair and reasonable, I would be reluctant to agree to it without understanding the costs that are associated with it and, of course, the corresponding benefits that we might expect to derive.

John Finnie

I will speak in support of my colleague Andy Wightman’s amendment. If I noted the cabinet secretary correctly, he said that it would “fundamentally change the scope” of that part of the bill.

Andy Wightman referred to the UN looking at the land situation in Scotland and it is simply embarrassing. Yes, the word “challenging” was repeatedly used; this is entirely meant to be challenging. Of course it is challenging.

Another issue that has come up, and not for the first time, is about the phraseology that is used. People know how amendments come to be considered here; they are all competent and people can express a view on them. Surprise, surprise, Scottish Land & Estates does not support it but, in many respects, that would be the very reason for me to lend support to something in the first instance. There is a lot of merit in the amendment and I encourage members to support it.

The Convener

This is the second group on which I will speak.

In relation to paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) in amendment 36A, I want to make it entirely clear that I support information on the ownership of land in Scotland being clear, available and accessible to all people. Therefore, I welcome the work that the register is doing and I see that as being a useful database that will be accessible to all. I am not sure that the amendment helps. We have heard evidence about how good the Forestry Commission’s mapping and control system is at the moment. I have found it to work very well when I have gone into it.

I have some issues with

“the characteristics of forests on the land covered by the map”

because it is difficult to define the characteristics of forestry. Where do you go to the next level? At the moment, we have some useful maps that were developed by the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, which give a land classification for all land in Scotland and productive capacities for land. On top of that, you could factor in the different forests and the different yield class, but you would end up with a map that would be of little use. I cannot see how that helps forestry so, for that reason, I struggle to support the amendment. That is not because I want to cover up land ownership; as I have said, I believe that it should be open, but this is not the map to do it.

As there are no further comments from members, I ask the cabinet secretary to wind up.

Fergus Ewing

I stand by my previous remarks.

The Convener

Andy Wightman, would you like to press or withdraw amendment 36A?

Andy Wightman

To make it clear, I do not seek to duplicate any work that anybody else is doing. The argument that the Registers of Scotland is accessible is wrong; it would cost an individual tens of thousands of pounds to access that information from the registers. I see Mr Stevenson shaking his head, but to obtain information from the land register costs £30 per land title.

Countries around Europe publish good statistics on an annual basis about many aspects of land use, not just forestry, although we are talking about forestry here. Those include good data on the gender of forest owners, which we need with regard to the equalities impact of policy. We are developing policy around forestry expansion completely blind as to who owns forestry land and what kind of people—women, communities, farmers, families or so on—we might wish to see owning more forestry land.

Although I accept that there might be technical reasons for my amendment not to be included in section 12, it is very straightforward. It is designed to achieve the policy objective of providing better data to enable everyone with an interest in the matter, including policy makers, academics and the public, to better understand the nature, characteristics and patterns of forest ownership in Scotland, and to place a duty on ministers to publish that information in exactly the same way that they publish information relating to the national forest estate.

I press amendment 36A.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 36A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Abstentions

Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)

The Convener

The result of the division: For 2, Against 8, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 36A disagreed to.

Amendment 36 agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 37 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 13—Management of land to further sustainable development

The Convener

I remind members that if amendment 38 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 39.

Amendment 38 moved—[Fergus Ewing].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 38 agreed to.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.

Section 16—Compulsory purchase of land

Amendment 6 moved—[Peter Chapman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 6 disagreed to.

Amendment 40 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

Section 17—Power to dispose of land

Amendment 3 moved—[Mike Rumbles]—and agreed to.

The Convener

I remind members that if amendment 41 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 42.

Amendment 41 moved—[Fergus Ewing].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Against

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 7, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 41 agreed to.

Amendment 12 moved—[John Finnie].

Amendment 12A moved—[Jamie Greene].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 12A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Abstentions

Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 12A disagreed to.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

Against

Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

Abstentions

Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 5, Abstentions 1. As the result is a tie, I must exercise my casting vote. I agree to the amendment.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

Section 18—Delegation of functions under section 9 or 13 to community bodies

Amendment 43 moved—[Richard Lyle]—and agreed to.

Section 19—Meaning of “community body”

Amendment 132 moved—[Jamie Greene].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 132 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 132 disagreed to.

Amendment 44 moved—[Richard Lyle]—and agreed to.

Section 20—Exercise of delegated function by community bodies

Amendment 45 moved—[Richard Lyle]—and agreed to.

Section 21 agreed to.

The Convener

Thank you. It is clear that we cannot get through stage 2 today. We will have to pick up where we have left off next week. I remind members that amendments to the remaining sections of the bill can still be lodged, and the deadline for doing so is noon 7 December. That concludes today’s business. I am sorry that we did not get through it all.

The Convener (Edward Mountain)

Good morning, and welcome to the 36th meeting in 2017 of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. I remind everyone to ensure that their mobile phones are on silent.

Agenda item 1 is stage 2 consideration of the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill. I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity, Fergus Ewing, and his officials from the Scottish Government.

I declare an interest as a member of a farming partnership. That has little to do with the bill, but I wanted to put it on the record. Do any other members want to declare an interest?

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

I have a small registered agricultural holding.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

I, too, declare an interest as a partner in a farming partnership.

The Convener

Thank you.

Everyone should have with them a copy of the bill as introduced, the second marshalled list of amendments, which was published on Thursday, and the second groupings of amendments, which set out the amendments in the order in which they will be debated.

It might be helpful to again explain the procedure briefly. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in the group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. I will then call any other members who have lodged amendments in that group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should indicate that by catching my attention in the usual way. If the cabinet secretary has not already spoken on the group, I will invite him to contribute to the debate just before I move to the winding-up speech. The debate on the group will be concluded by my inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up.

Following the debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on that amendment. If the member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the agreement of other members to do so. If any member present objects, the committee will immediately move to the vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say, “Not moved.” Please note that any other member present may move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshalled list.

Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by a show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerks have recorded the vote. The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section of and schedule to the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point. We aim to complete stage 2 today.

Section 22—Key terms in Part 4

The Convener

The first group of amendments is on the offence of unauthorised felling. Amendment 46, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 133 to 135.

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity (Fergus Ewing)

Amendment 46 amends the definition of “felling” in response to the evidence that was provided to the committee during stage 1. It will move us to a position in which “felling”, for the purposes of the bill, includes both its ordinary meaning and the intentional killing of trees. That is intended to capture what the sector would recognise as felling and to ensure that, for example, the poisoning or ring-barking of trees in order to kill them and move land out of forestry use is also caught. That is in line with the fundamental principle behind the approach to the well-established regulation of felling, which looks to control and maintain woodland cover and, if appropriate, apply restocking requirements. The sector supports the change.

Mr Chapman’s amendments would hardwire a small selection of the current exemptions to the offence of unauthorised felling into the primary legislation. As I have stated previously, I do not think that the face of the bill is the place for such exemptions. I see no reason to treat that small selection of current exemptions preferentially while setting aside those that allow other things. Those include, for example, allowing power lines to be kept clear, exemptions for developments that have obtained planning permission to go ahead and exemptions for felling required by a water authority. I just give some examples of exemptions that Mr Chapman does not feel should be in the bill.

The amendments also fail to reproduce the exemptions that allow the felling of trees that are suffering from Dutch elm disease, for example, or for purposes associated with aviation, including obstructions to the approaches to and departures from aerodromes. Members will get the sense that there are a variety of circumstances in which felling might be appropriate or necessary so it is difficult to see why some should be in the bill and some should not. I am interested to hear what Mr Chapman says in explanation of his amendment.

In addition, I see nothing from Mr Chapman that caters for changes to be made to the exemptions that he has selected. They would be fixed and that is less flexible and proportionate than even the current arrangements, whereby much of what is in the Forestry Act 1967 can be changed by regulation. As you would expect, all the exemptions that are made in regulations can be changed. Mr Chapman’s amendments would introduce a degree of inflexibility that is not appropriate or desirable and could cause unforeseen and, presumably, unintended consequences.

Amendments 133 to 135 would create a two-tier system of exemptions—one fixed in primary legislation without any route for change, were it to be required, and one set in regulations, with all the flexibility that comes with that approach, which is substantially supported by stakeholders.

As introduced, the bill poses a more practical regime in which all the exemptions are created by regulations and are found in one clear set of regulations that can be suitably adjusted if there is a good reason to do so. For the practitioner, having one clear set of regulations is always desirable.

I am absolutely certain that Mr Chapman lodged his amendments with good intentions, so I hope that my response has highlighted how far-reaching and important the exemptions are. We have to get this right, and I am working with stakeholders to ensure that the exemptions that we carry forward are fit for purpose. I am determined that we should use this as an opportunity to adjust them if that would be beneficial, rather than simply copying and pasting all of, or an arbitrary selection of, what is there now. For example, I know that some people have suggested exploring whether there is a way of increasing the protection of ancient or semi-natural woodlands by adjusting the exemptions based on volume, which are one set that Mr Chapman proposed to set in stone.

I am committed to considering such ideas so that the most appropriate arrangements are in place at the point of completing devolution in April 2019. As the committee has already heard, I am using the current exemptions as the basis for what we put into regulations. Changes will be made only when there is a good reason so to do and there will be no gap between the current exemptions and the new ones. I say that because the committee specifically said in its report that there should be no gap, which was sound advice that we should follow. That approach has broad support from the stakeholders that we have heard from. Confor does not support the amendments.

The regulation-making power for exemptions is affirmative, so Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the result of the collaboration with the sector and other interested parties, which is a good thing.

I move amendment 46.

Peter Chapman

I am pleased to speak to amendments 133 to 135. As the cabinet secretary intimated, I lodged them with good intentions. We believe that the key definitions are in the Forestry Act 1967 and we want to ensure that they are in the bill.

Section 24 of the bill gives Scottish ministers the power to set out exceptions in regulations.

The cabinet secretary argues that that should remain a general and flexible power and he does not want the provision to set out specific detailed exceptions. However, given that the bill repeals the felling provisions from the Forestry Act 1967, we argue that specific cases that we want to be made exempt should be specified.

The three suggested provisions that we have taken from the Forestry Act 1967 would provide clarity for forestry landowners and widen the exceptions to the offence. That is why I intend to move amendments 133 to 135 in my name. I also support amendment 46 in the name of the cabinet secretary.

Stewart Stevenson

I will speak briefly to amendment 135, which is about the cubic size of trees that can be felled in three months. Putting that into primary legislation illustrates a more general problem: when you move something from secondary to primary legislation you remove the context. As a layperson—not a forester—I do not know what 5 cubic metres of wood is. Is it, for example, the size of the tree before you fell it? I suspect that that is not the case, as I cannot think of a single tree that would be 5 cubic metres before it is felled. Is it the result of what you get when you leave aside the brush that you are going to discard? What does it mean? When you bring something like that into primary legislation without those sort of explanations, you create some dangerous issues—at least for the layperson. I accept that that might not be the case for the professional forester. As a layperson reading the amendment, it struck me that it would stand alone, without the context that it would have had in the secondary legislation.

Fergus Ewing

I recognise that Mr Chapman lodged amendments 133 to 135 with good intentions. I thank him for doing so and for allowing a debate on an important matter. However, we need the clarity and flexibility that will come from having the exemptions determined in secondary legislation. Amendments 133 to 135 would deny us that flexibility, which could be required in future. They would appear to demote the importance of exemptions in other areas, many of which I have covered, although there are many more.

It is largely a technical matter on which all the stakeholders appear to agree with the Government’s approach. I commend that approach to the committee.

Amendment 46 agreed to.

The Convener

The next group of amendments is on remedial notices. Amendment 47, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 48, 52, 55, 57 to 75, 75A, 76 to 78, 78A, 79 to 81, 81A, 82 to 84, 84A, 85, 85A, 86, 86A, 87, 87A, 88, 89, 89A, 90 to 92, 97, 97A, 98 to 100, 100A, 101, 106 and 114.

Fergus Ewing

This large group of amendments encompasses three areas—two introduced by the Government and one by Mr Chapman—relating to the remedial notices provided for in part 4 of the bill. Remedial notices will be used where it appears to the Scottish ministers that a person is failing to comply with a permission, direction or registered notice. A remedial notice will set out what steps must be taken by a person in order to bring them back into compliance. Although the hope is that that will result in compliance, if it does not, ministers may then use their powers to step in.

For the sake of giving context to this large group of technical amendments, I will set out the sequence for felling permissions. A permission is granted for felling with conditions attached, usually relating to the restocking of the site. If one or more of those conditions is not complied with, ministers serve the person who is failing to comply with a remedial notice, setting out the steps that they must take in order to come back into compliance, perhaps in relation to the timing of restocking or the way in which it is to be done. If those steps are not taken, ministers may use their step-in powers to carry out those steps themselves. Finally, if ministers consider that it is reasonable to do so, they may reclaim the costs of taking those steps.

I thought it useful to run through that process. Remedial notices are a crucial part of the enforcement picture, in that they allow for the end that we all want to reach, which is for there to be compliance with conditions. In other words, conditions set out for restocking should be complied with, and the process allows us to have confidence that there is a mechanism to do that. However, remedial notices do not interfere with the ability to refer offences to the procurator fiscal. That option is open to ministers at any point in the process.

The first of my proposed changes is to make it clear that remedial notices may have conditions attached to them. That proposed change, which is dealt with by amendment 85 and the consequential amendments 81, 84, 86, 89, 97 and 100, will bring remedial notices into line with felling and restocking directions and will ensure that the Scottish ministers are able to specify in regulations what the conditions that are attached to remedial notices can include.

The second of my proposed changes is to bring remedial notices into line with permissions and directions as far as the ability to register is concerned. Amendments 87, 88 and 101 seek to do that by enabling registration; by underpinning registered remedial notices with an offence of failure to comply; and by providing for appeals to be made against refusal to vary or discharge a notice. The consequential amendments 47, 48, 52, 55, 57 to 80, 82, 83, 90 to 92, 98, 99 and 114 are important in ensuring that remedial notices can be enforced in the same way as permissions and directions under the bill.

Peter Chapman’s amendments 75A, 78A, 81A, 84A, 85A, 86A, 87A, 89A, 97A and 100A seek to insert the word “reasonable” into all the Government amendments that insert references to conditions on remedial notices. I reassure the committee that ministers are bound to act reasonably in exercising all their powers. [Laughter.] Why that stimulates jocularity is a matter for members. We are bound by the law to act reasonably in exercising all our powers, including all those that are set out in the bill.

The power relating to the imposition of remedial notices and the inclusion of conditions is a discretionary power. All discretionary powers that ministers have must be exercised in accordance with the rules of administrative law, which means that they must be exercised in a manner that is reasonable and proportionate, and for proper purposes. In Scotland, the Court of Session has judicial oversight, and decisions may be challenged through the process of judicial review. That has happened not infrequently, and “reasonableness” is at the very heart of that process. If a power is exercised in a manner—to paraphrase Lord Greene in the so-called Wednesbury case—that is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to that decision, the courts may interfere and hold that decision to be outwith the scope of the power that was conferred by Parliament.

I am very pleased that, in relation to decisions that I have taken over the years—I can think of four, which I will not name—the courts have eventually decided that I acted reasonably in all circumstances. That irrelevant personal observation aside—

The Convener

I am glad that you said that, cabinet secretary.

Fergus Ewing

That is an illustration of the fact that such matters are taken seriously.

I assume that Mr Chapman lodged his amendments with the laudable aim of protecting the regulated from unreasonable actions by their regulator, but I believe that, instead of providing clarity or reassurance, the addition of the word “reasonable” might cause confusion. After all, if one provides, in some circumstances, that ministers must act reasonably, that begs the question whether there is a difference between those circumstances and circumstances in which ministers have other discretionary powers in relation to the use of which the word “reasonable” does not appear. It begs the question whether different degrees of duty have been imposed on ministers.

Although I am absolutely certain that Mr Chapman’s amendments are well intentioned, given that that potential for confusion exists, I respectfully invite him not to move his amendments.

I move amendment 47.

Peter Chapman

I will speak to my amendments 75A, 84A, 85A, 86A, 87A, 97A and 100A.

Although we support the addition of remedial notices and registered remedial notices, we do not agree with the wording

“a remedial notice (including any condition imposed on it)”.

We think that that should read “including any reasonable condition imposed on it”. We feel that the provision is too wide.

Putting the word “reasonable” before the word “condition” means that the condition imposed under the bill would have to relate to forestry. I would argue that adding “reasonable” to the conditions imposed on registered remedial notices would make for conditions that are fair and proportionate. As the cabinet secretary said, the Government is bound to act in a reasonable manner, so I take it from that that he can have no objection to the word “reasonable” appearing in the bill in the various provisions to which my amendments relate.

Stewart Stevenson

There is always a temptation to take a blanket approach to these things but, unfortunately, that leads us into temptations that we should avoid. I particularly want to look at amendment 84A, where the addition of the word “reasonable” would have the opposite effect to that which Mr Chapman suggested.

Mr Chapman said that the power is too wide and that the word “reasonable” needs to be added to amend it. As introduced, the bill states:

“The Scottish Ministers may vary or revoke a remedial notice.”

If we add the cabinet secretary’s amendment, that becomes:

“The Scottish Ministers may vary or revoke a remedial notice (including any condition imposed on it)”.

When we add the word “reasonable”, it becomes:

“The Scottish Ministers may vary or revoke a remedial notice (including any reasonable condition imposed on it)”.

In other words, that would deny the Scottish ministers the opportunity to revoke a condition that was not reasonable. The addition of the word “reasonable” would therefore restrict the power to revoke a remedial notice.

One might make a logical case for adding the word “reasonable”, but we have to go back to the legislation and look at the effect of every individual word that we add. I focus on amendment 84A only to exemplify the dangers of what Mr Chapman is proposing because it would have the opposite effect to the one that I think he seeks. I cannot support the amendment because it would restrict the ability to revoke remedial notices that Mr Chapman or others might conclude were not reasonable.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

For a moment, I thought that I was on the set of the comedy production “Yes Minister” during that discussion about when the word “reasonable” actually means “unreasonable”. I am astonished to hear the cabinet secretary and Stewart Stevenson make a marvellous case to make the word “reasonable” sound unreasonable. I do not accept that proposition. If they are moved, I will support Peter Chapman’s amendments, which are full of reasonableness. I cannot think of better amendments that we have seen in this whole process. They would restrict ministers’ actions and would put that into law. I heard the cabinet secretary say that ministers are required by law to act reasonably—of course they are—but let us not forget that this is the law. We are making the law and putting it into black and white for the avoidance of doubt. To have to go to court to see whether ministers are acting reasonably or have not acted unreasonably would—

Stewart Stevenson

Will the member take an intervention?

Mike Rumbles

No, I think that you have had your say.

Stewart Stevenson

I have a question for the member.

Mike Rumbles

I am commenting on the minister’s comments.

It would be strange to have to go to court to prove that ministers were not acting unreasonably, whereas there could be a requirement in black and white in the bill, which will become an act of the Parliament, for the minister to act reasonably with regard to the notices.

I go back to where I started. I thought that I was on the set of “Yes Minister” when I heard the English language being turned on its head. I am full of reasonableness and am a reasonable person, so I will certainly support Mr Chapman’s reasonable amendments.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

I quite often think that I am on the set of “Yes Minister” when I hear Mr Rumbles speak.

I am also a member of the Justice Committee, which transacts a lot of business that places certain demands on ministers, and I have to say that we would be dealing with an endless number of amendments if we had to insert the word “reasonable” every time. We heard from Stewart Stevenson a very graphic and practical reason why we should not support Peter Chapman’s amendments, and I will not support them.

Richard Lyle (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)

I know that Mr Rumbles is always a reasonable man, but I think that he just destroyed his own case. I am concerned that a lawyer will have a field day with that word, so I will support neither Mr Chapman nor the reasonable Mr Rumbles.

The Convener

I want to make an observation before I hand back to the cabinet secretary. As a remedial notice issued under the bill will have to come with reasonable conditions, there is no way that any conditions that are not reasonable can be removed, because they will not have been put in the notice in the first place. I think, therefore, that there is a very good argument for inserting the word “reasonable”, and I will support Peter Chapman’s amendments.

Fergus Ewing

I will make just three points. First, if Mr Chapman’s amendments are accepted, we will be adopting in this statute an approach that is entirely inconsistent with the approach that we have taken in the Parliament and, indeed, that has been taken in the history of parliamentary draftsmanship. As I have said, such an approach is also unnecessary, given that the law extant in the UK is based on the Wednesbury test, and it will create confusion.

Moreover, there would, even in the bill, be unintended consequences. Mr Chapman’s imposition of the word “reasonable” would apply to some matters and not to others. I am thinking of section 31, which confers quite wide powers on ministers if it appears that the felling of trees is required. For example, under section 31(6)(d), any regulations that are made may include

“the imposition of conditions on a felling direction”.

Had Mr Rumbles seriously intended that a consistent approach be taken, the word “reasonable” should have appeared before the word “conditions” in that provision; after all, he would argue that the implication would be that we could act in unreasonable ways in felling directions. The approach therefore creates inconsistency even within the bill, because we would be explicitly bound to act reasonably in the case of remedial notices but not in other cases. Surely that is inconsistent and not something that any reasonably minded member would be liable to support.

Finally, the way in which Mr Chapman has worded his amendments leads to another presumably unintended consequence, which is that we would still be able to impose unreasonable remedial notices—we just would not be able to register them. The result of Mr Chapman’s amendments is that we would be able to impose but not register unreasonable conditions, and I submit that that would certainly be unreasonable—and perhaps even perverse.

Amendment 47 agreed to.

Section 22, as amended, agreed to.

Section 23—Offence of unauthorised felling

Amendments 133 to 135 not moved.

Amendment 48 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 23, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 24 to 26 agreed to.

Section 27—Decisions on applications

The Convener

The next group of amendments is on the continuation of conditions on felling permissions. Amendment 49, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendment 50.

Fergus Ewing

I am grateful for the committee’s consideration of the provisions in the bill relating to registration, and I hope that our discussion on 13 September served to clarify the intention behind the powers to register notices. Specifically, they are about ensuring that the conditions that ministers, as the forestry regulator, place on a piece of land bind future owners, with the entire focus on ensuring that conditions—or, as the case may be, directions—can be enforced, regardless of the number of changes in ownership that there have been, and that conditions come up in solicitors’ ordinary property searches when a piece of land is being purchased.

Conditions are familiar to the forestry sector and routinely set out restocking requirements and timeframes. They may also set out how to ensure that operations respect buffer areas around certain rivers while salmon are spawning, for example, or stipulate that no operations may occur near capercaillie core areas during the breeding season. There could also be longer-term conditions relating to the management of important open space in a forest area to stop unwanted encroachment by natural regeneration of invasive species such as rhododendron.

As suggested, I have considered how best to ensure the proportionate and cost and resource-effective use of powers to register notices. At stage 1, the committee alluded to the risk-based approach to registration—which relates to the fact that it is a power and not an obligation to register in all instances—and the issue has now been given further thought. I consider a risk-based approach to registration to be the best way of using the power to ensure compliance with conditions such as restocking requirements on a felling permission. In future, owners will be required to advise the local conservancy of any plans to put their forest property on the market, and that will be a trigger for a conservancy—in other words, the new forestry division operating locally—to consider whether there are any conditions that require to be registered.

Amendment 49 seeks to put beyond any doubt that conditions can, on top of all the familiar conditions that I have mentioned, require those using felling permissions to provide information to ministers. The type of information that we envisage will be required might relate to, for example, the preparations for a sale of land so that ministers can take a risk-based approach to registering conditions. Amendment 50 makes it clear that the regulations on providing further information on how decisions will be made on felling permissions may include detail on how such requests for information will operate.

I believe that, taken together, the amendments support the proportionate use of the power to register that the committee rightly asked for, and I am pleased that Confor and Scottish Land & Estates, which had some initial reservations about registration, agree that this is the correct approach.

I move amendment 49.

Amendment 49 agreed to.

Amendment 50 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 27, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 28 and 29 agreed to.

Section 30—Felling of trees subject to tree preservation orders

The Convener

The next group is on the felling of trees subject to tree preservation orders. Amendment 51, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 53 and 54.

Fergus Ewing

Tree preservation orders—TPOs, as they are known—are used by planning authorities to protect trees in their areas in the interests of amenity or because they are of cultural or historical significance. As TPOs can impose prohibitions on the cutting down and lopping of trees, for example, there could be an overlap with the forestry felling regime. At the moment, however, such an overlap does not often occur.

Usually, TPOs are put in place when trees are currently subject to felling exemptions. Gardens, orchards and churchyards are currently exempt, as is the felling of small volumes of timber. As I have outlined, we are working with the sector to review the exemptions and, where appropriate, refine them. We expect the overlap to remain limited; however, to ensure that a person who wants to fell in an area where both regimes apply does not need to apply for permission twice, amendment 51 provides the Scottish ministers with the ability to refer an application to fell to the planning authority that made the TPO. If ministers decide to determine the application instead, amendment 51 preserves the requirement to consult the planning authority that made the TPO and to take account of its representations. It also disapplies the offence of felling without permission for actions taken in accordance with the TPO consent after such a referral, which is in line with current practice.

Amendment 54 requires ministers to consult a planning authority before issuing a felling direction if the direction relates to a tree that is subject to a TPO. That brings the felling direction provisions in line with the felling permission provisions. Amendment 53 is consequential to amendment 54.

I move amendment 51.

Amendment 51 agreed to.

Amendments 52 and 53 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 30, as amended, agreed to.

Section 31—Felling directions

Amendment 54 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 31, as amended, agreed to.

Section 32 agreed to.

Section 33—Restocking directions

Amendment 55 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 33, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 34 to 36 agreed to.

Section 37—Registration of notices of variation

The Convener

The next group is on the definition of “owner”. Amendment 56, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 109 and 113.

Fergus Ewing

Amendment 109 defines what is meant by “owner” for the purposes of the bill. Amendment 113 is consequential to amendment 109. We are seeking to define “owner” for the purposes of the bill in order to put it beyond doubt that, when ownership has transferred by a means that does not trigger a change to the title sheet of the land register, we mean it to refer to the most recent owner. For example, when ownership is transferred on inheritance, that is often carried out by docket transfer, with no change to the title.

Amendment 56 replaces “each owner” with “the owner” in section 37, regarding registration of notices of variation. The term “the owner” is used throughout the rest of the bill. The effect of amendment 56 is to bring section 37 into line with other sections.

I move amendment 56.

Amendment 56 agreed to.

Amendments 57 to 64 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 37, as amended, agreed to.

Section 38—Registration of notices of discharge from compliance

Amendments 65 to 71 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 38, as amended, agreed to.

Section 39—Meaning of “register” in Chapters 6 and 7

Amendment 72 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 39, as amended, agreed to.

Section 40—Registration of notices under Chapters 6 and 7: descriptions of land

Amendment 73 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 40, as amended, agreed to.

Section 41—Receipt of notices under Chapters 6 and 7 by Keeper

Amendment 74 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 41, as amended, agreed to.

Section 42—Requests for information

Amendment 75 moved—[Fergus Ewing].

Amendment 75A moved—[Peter Chapman].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 75A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con))
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 4, Against 7, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 75A disagreed to.

Amendment 75 agreed to.

Amendments 76 and 77 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 42, as amended, agreed to.

Section 43 agreed to.

Section 44—Site visits with consent of owner or occupier

Amendment 78 moved—[Fergus Ewing].

Amendment 78A not moved.

Amendment 78 agreed to.

Amendment 79 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 44, as amended, agreed to.

Section 45—Power of entry: unauthorised felling

Amendment 80 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 45, as amended, agreed to.

Section 46 agreed to.

Section 47—Power of entry: failure to comply

Amendment 81 moved—[Fergus Ewing].

Amendment 81A not moved.

Amendment 81 agreed to.

Amendments 82 and 83 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 47, as amended, agreed to.

Section 48—Remedial notices

Amendment 84 moved—[Fergus Ewing].

Amendment 84A not moved.

Amendment 84 agreed to.

Amendment 85 moved—[Fergus Ewing].

Amendment 85A not moved.

Amendment 85 agreed to.

Section 48, as amended, agreed to.

Section 49—Remedial notices: offence

Amendment 86 moved—[Fergus Ewing].

Amendment 86A not moved.

Amendment 86 agreed to.

Section 49, as amended, agreed to.

After section 49

Amendment 87 moved—[Fergus Ewing].

Amendment 87A not moved.

Amendment 87 agreed to.

Amendment 88 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 50 agreed to.

Section 51—Step-in power

Amendment 89 moved—[Fergus Ewing].

Amendment 89A not moved.

Amendment 89 agreed to.

Amendments 90 to 92 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 51, as amended, agreed to.

Section 52—Powers of entry and step-in power: application to court

The Convener

The next group is on powers of entry and step-in power. Amendment 93, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 94 to 96.

Fergus Ewing

Amendment 93 adds summary sheriffs to the list of persons who, under section 52, can issue warrants to authorise entry to land where entry “has been refused” or is “reasonably expected” to be refused, where “the land is unoccupied” or where the owner “is temporarily absent”. That means that the full list of those who can issue warrants for the purposes of section 52 would be sheriffs, summary sheriffs and justices of the peace. It is Government policy to include summary sheriffs in provisions for the granting of warrants such as those in section 52.

Amendment 94 is consequential to amendment 93.

Amendment 96 has the effect that references to “the Scottish Ministers” in sections relating to site visits, powers of entry and step-in powers, will include

“persons authorised ... by the Scottish Ministers”.

That means that ministers will be able to use contractors or consultants, as the need arises—for example, to carry out site visits to check compliance with conditions relating to a protected site.

Amendment 95 is consequential to amendment 96.

I move amendment 93.

Amendment 93 agreed to.

Amendment 94 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 52, as amended, agreed to.

Section 53 agreed to.

Section 54—Powers of entry and step-in power: further provision

Amendments 95 and 96 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 54, as amended, agreed to.

Section 55—Step-in power: recovery of expenses

Amendment 97 moved—[Fergus Ewing].

Amendment 97A not moved.

Amendment 97 agreed to.

Amendment 98 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 55, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 56 to 58 agreed to.

Section 59—Time limit for prosecution

Amendment 99 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 59, as amended, agreed to.

Section 60—Appeals against decisions by Scottish Ministers

Amendment 100 moved—[Fergus Ewing].

Amendment 100A not moved.

Amendment 100 agreed to.

Amendment 101 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 60, as amended, agreed to.

Section 61—Information, research and education etc

The Convener

The next group is on information, research and education. Amendment 13, in the name of Peter Chapman, is the only amendment in the group.

Peter Chapman

In my opinion, amendment 13 is important. It would change the word “may” to “must” in section 61, which would mean that ministers must carry out research. We have spoken to many stakeholders who all agreed that there will never be a time when we do not need more research and education on tree health.

I move amendment 13.

Stewart Stevenson

The effect of changing “may” to “must” would be extremely slight. Were the bill to say “must”, the Scottish ministers would need to do research only once. That would be the effect. We know that research of the kind that is described is being undertaken: in a practical sense, the effect of the amendment would be that it would need to be done only once.

Fergus Ewing

Research, development and education are extremely important functions in respect of forestry. The Scottish Government is committed to carrying out those functions as appropriate. I can inform members that in 2016-17, the Scottish Government, through the Forestry Commission Scotland, commissioned nearly £1 million of Scotland-specific research and development. I have the full details here, but I wanted to start off with that clear commitment.

Although I appreciate what Peter Chapman is trying to achieve with amendment 13, I would like to offer an alternative approach, which I believe is to be preferred. I am also concerned that the amendment would oblige Scottish ministers to carry out functions even when the functions are not necessary. I acknowledge that that may seem unlikely when it comes to research into tree health; we are sadly unlikely to run out of avenues for research on that front in any of our lifetimes.

However, amendment 13 covers much more than research: it covers all the matters that are listed in section 61, to which members may wish to refer. It was necessary to draft section 61 quite broadly because the provisions are intended to be enabling in nature, but amendment 13 would oblige ministers to do all of the following: to

“conduct research and inquiries ... collect data and publish statistics ... provide education and training”

and

“encourage or assist other persons to do any of”

those things in the exercise of the bill’s functions.

Furthermore, amendment 13 would apply to all the ministers’ functions under the bill. Amendment 13 therefore goes much wider than, for example, the duty to carry out research into tree health or to provide training for machine operators in forestry, which I believe may be the intention behind the amendment. Such research and training are vital and are currently carried out without such an obligation being in place. The Forestry Act 1967 does not place such a duty on the forestry commissioners but, rather, enables them to carry out such work. As the duty would apply to all ministers’ functions under the bill, it would include functions relating to the management of non-forested land and to the regulatory functions that we have discussed in relation to the previous groups.

Even in relation to the forestry parts of the bill, it is unclear what amendment 13 would mean. Consider, for example, an obligation to provide education and training in connection with the duty to prepare a forestry strategy. That duty rests on Scottish ministers—currently, on me. Maybe Mr Chapman believes that I need to be educated or trained prior to undertaking the duty that would be imposed on me in order to prepare the forestry strategy. That is what his amendment would mean, but I presume that that is not something that he had in mind when he lodged it. Ministers may well consider it appropriate that the strategy includes material on education and training in the forestry sector, but that is not the same as a duty to provide education and training in connection with the duty to prepare the strategy.

A second example of the difficulties is that amendment 13 would oblige ministers to assist others personally, which would, again, have consequences that were, I presume, unintended. For example, the private sector has an obligation to collect data and publish statistics. Amendment 13 would impose an obligation on ministers to provide assistance in that, which might have the effect of imposing obligations on taxpayers to cover expenses that properly should be covered by private sector businesses. Again, I do not think that Mr Chapman intends that that be the case, but it would be a consequence because of how the amendment is framed and the wording of section 61.

Nonetheless, I understand the motivation behind amendment 13, and I have sympathy with anyone who is attempting to provide a sure footing for important issues. I am committed to ensuring that tree health research continues at the levels that we need. Indeed, on the day of the stage 1 debate, we announced that Forest Research would continue as an agency of the forestry commissioners: I will visit the Forest Research station at the Bush estate tomorrow.

I would prefer to work with Mr Chapman between now and stage 3 to develop a duty that focuses on having suitable arrangements in place to carry out tree health research. An amendment that focuses on maintaining or improving our capacity would be a proportionate way forward. I point out that ministers have agreed across the UK an equitable split of the £11 million core budget for cross-border functions, which is currently held in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The majority of that funding relates to research, which would be carried out in accordance with the published “Science and innovation strategy for forestry in Great Britain”.

The Convener

Jamie Greene has asked to come in; I will let him do that. If any other member wants to come in before I ask Peter Chapman to wind up, let me know.

Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)

After listening to the cabinet secretary with great interest, I have a few points to make on amendment 13.

The cabinet secretary has identified a technicality issue with changing the word “may” to “must”. Would it place a duty on the minister as an individual to undertake the activities that are listed in section 61(a) to (d)—including research, education and publishing data—or would it create a duty on the minister to ensure that they take place? I am unsure, so I ask for clarification.

In essence, I support what Peter Chapman is trying to achieve. It is up to him whether to press the amendment. However, in much of the evidence that we have taken, different factions have expressed genuine concern about the restructuring of the Forestry Commission Scotland and its becoming, in essence, a Government department. Those witnesses said that it is vital that we protect some of the commission’s key functions, including publishing data, providing education and training, and conducting research.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s proposal to strengthen the bill. The problem with the word “may” is that it also means that Scottish ministers may not do what is outlined in the section. Peter Chapman is trying to strengthen section 61 to ensure that those current functions of the Forestry Commission are not lost as a result of the bill or any restructuring that takes place. That is why I am keen to support his amendment 13.

The Convener

Cabinet secretary, there was a question there, which I will give you a chance to answer. However, I will let Mike Rumbles speak first.

Mike Rumbles

Section 61 is an enabling section. It seems reasonable to me that the minister is being enabled to do all that it says, so I am perfectly happy with the word “may” rather than an instruction such as “must”.

Stewart Stevenson said that if we put the word “must” into section 61, ministers would have to do what it says only once, but if we leave the word “may” in it, they would not have to do it at all. However, I trust the cabinet secretary and other ministers to operate under this enabling legislation. I do not trust everything that ministers do, but I do in this case, so I am happy not to support amendment 13.

The Convener

Cabinet secretary, would you like answer Jamie Greene’s question?

Fergus Ewing

I am sorry, but I did not quite catch it. I wonder whether he could reframe it for my benefit.

Jamie Greene

I am happy to. It was probably more an observation. It concerned your statement that changing the word “may” to “must” would mean that the duties would be on the minister as an individual as opposed to on the minister and his department.

Fergus Ewing

The objection to using the word “must” is that the obligation would then be to carry out research regardless of whether it was required. There is no question: we require research. We must have research because of the threats to tree health by Hylobius, for example. It is one of the biggest worries in forestry, as members know and as I am sure the committee has heard from stakeholders. There is no question about that. Our concern was that using the word “must” would mean that we had an obligation to carry out research of any sort, whether or not it is required.

I reassure members that the function will, in essence, be carried out at UK level. We have reached an agreement with the UK Government and the Welsh Administration about how that will be done. We have reached an agreement about how the budget should be allocated, and we have agreed that the various Administrations will take the lead in specific areas. We have agreed that the Welsh Government will take the lead on research; that the research that is to be carried out will be determined by all the relevant bodies, the UK Government and the devolved Administrations; and that it will be done in accordance with the “Science and innovation strategy for forestry in Great Britain”. There is already a settled approach to conducting research, and many excellent staff in Scotland are working on that.

John Finnie

I am reassured by what you have said about the collaborative work that will be done at GB level. Can you confirm that part of the liaison regarding research will be done on an international basis?

Fergus Ewing

Of course. Scientists have regard to all the evidence, regardless of where it is gathered. It is important for scientists to look at the work of others across Europe and beyond, as they do. Mr Finnie makes an important point.

The Convener

I invite Peter Chapman to wind up and to indicate whether he wishes to press amendment 13 or to withdraw it.

Peter Chapman

I absolutely believe that “may” is not a strong enough word to use in section 61. I do not understand Stewart Stevenson’s point. He said that if “must” were used, ministers would have to do the specified activities only once, which does not seem to be a logical argument.

However, I accept the cabinet secretary’s point about the effect of my amendment on section 61(d), which could result in private companies being encouraged or assisted to undertake some of the activities that are mentioned, which was not my intention.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s offer to work with me. I think that section 61 needs to be strengthened, but if Mr Ewing is minded to work to achieve a better solution, I am prepared to accept that offer, and so seek to withdraw amendment 13.

Amendment 13, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 61 agreed to.

Sections 62 to 64 agreed to.

After section 64

The Convener

The next group of amendments is on organisational structures. Amendment 102, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 103 to 105, 107, 108 and 136.

Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)

When we took evidence on the bill, there was concern that the new structures would mean a loss of the Forestry Commission’s well-regarded forestry expertise. The Government has ignored the pleas not to change the structures. My amendments attempt to protect forestry expertise and keep the new organisation rooted in the industry and the communities that it will serve.

Amendment 102 seeks to create the post of chief forester. It is modelled on the statutory provision that requires local authorities to have certain professional heads of service, such as a chief finance officer, a chief education officer and a chief social work officer. It establishes a requirement for such a post but leaves ministers to specify in regulations what professional qualifications would be mandatory for anyone who sought to occupy the post. Under amendment 107, those regulations would be subject to the negative procedure.

Amendment 103 is similar to amendment 102, but it seeks to create the post of area forester. It does not prescribe the areas—it leaves that to the Scottish ministers. As I understand it, there are currently five divisions, which could be designated as areas to be covered by area foresters. Amendment 103 allows ministers to specify in regulations what qualifications or experience the prospective postholder would be required to have. Under amendment 105, those regulations would be subject to the negative procedure.

Amendment 104 seeks to put in place a national advisory group, which would not be a formal commission but a group that ministers could appoint to advise them. Once again, the amendment is designed to keep forestry rooted in the economic environment and social principles that should guide our forestry policy.

Amendment 105 sets up similar local groups in areas that could follow current forestry divisions.

I hope that those amendments will keep the best of what the industry and communities cherish in the Forestry Commission, keeping the management of forestry close to its stakeholders by giving them a real say in policy making.

I turn to amendment 136, in the name of Claudia Beamish. One of the most contentious parts of the bill is the part that is not included. I support amendment 136, which provides for the publication of the Government structures so that they can be scrutinised, which would give some comfort to those in the industry.

I move amendment 102.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

Good morning. I speak in support of amendment 136, about which my office and other offices have had considerable dialogue with some stakeholders in the lead-up to the meeting.

In its stage 1 report, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee recommended that Scottish ministers should set out details of how they should manage and administer their forestry responsibilities and that members should also consult on and notify the Parliament of any significant future change in those arrangements. The committee also noted that stakeholders had expressed wide-ranging concerns about the separation of the functions of the Forestry Commission.

I would like to quote some of the consultation responses to the bill. The first question of the consultation was:

“Our proposals are for a dedicated Forestry Division in the Scottish Government (SG) and an Executive Agency to manage the NFE. Do you agree with this approach?”

The consultation analysis says:

“Around 5 in 20 respondents agreed with the proposal, while 13 in 20 disagreed, and around 2 in 20 did not answer the question.”

I am not sure how it could be “around” five, but they are not my words. It states that, among organisational respondents,

“The three most frequently-made points by those disagreeing with the proposals were that the management of Scotland’s forests:

• Should be or remain independent and be the responsibility of a stand-alone organisation which is separate from government.

• Should be managed by forestry experts/professionals, rather than by civil servants.

• Should sit within a single organisation and not be divided between two different bodies.”

Amendment 136 seeks to reflect the committee’s recommendations, as I have understood them, and to address the concerns that have been expressed by some stakeholders, including the Forestry Commission Scotland staff union, by requiring ministers to lay before the Parliament a report setting out the administrative arrangements they intend to make for the carrying out of their functions under the bill. That would include the arrangements intended for the establishment of any agency, its governance, the different roles and responsibilities of senior officers, the financial accountability, the establishment of advisory groups and the exercising of the power to form companies and so on under section 62. The amendment would also require ministers to consult appropriate persons on any future significant amendments and to notify the Scottish Parliament.

As I have highlighted, several forestry stakeholders have raised concerns about the new arrangements. They have explained their belief that Scotland’s forests should sit within one organisation. As I said, that issue was raised in the consultation on the bill.

I have not lodged an amendment to directly address that issue, partly because I do not sit on the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee—I wish to show respect to the committee—but also partly due to advice that I have received about the legislative complexities. I do not wish to lodge an amendment that could be in any way construed as a wrecking amendment.

However, stakeholders are concerned about the bill’s proposals that could sacrifice the long-established brand identity, the culture of joint working and knowledge sharing and the practical attitude of the current organisational arrangements.

It would be welcome if the cabinet secretary were able to address those concerns, which—as he will be aware—were raised at the consultation stage. Amendment 136 is an attempt to address those concerns constructively. Although I live in hope that the cabinet secretary might consider accepting the amendment, I appreciate that that might be a tall order at stage 2. Nevertheless, if the cabinet secretary were to consider, before stage 3, holding discussions on the issue of a single organisation with those who continue to express those concerns, I would be keen to participate.

Although I do not have a vote, I also support Rhoda Grant’s amendments, which I think will enable a more outward-looking arrangement, especially if there is a chief forester to oversee things.

Jamie Greene

I thank Rhoda Grant and Claudia Beamish for lodging their amendments. I will start with amendment 102, on the creation of a chief forester. I believe that the aim of appointing a chief forester reflects a view that was taken in the committee’s stage 1 report. It is a necessary function and a welcome addition to the bill, so I support amendment 102, in the name of Rhoda Grant.

However, I have concerns about amendments 103, 104 and 105. Putting in primary legislation that we must appoint area foresters is, in my view, a step too far in creating additional and perhaps unnecessary bureaucracy in the organisational structures of the future agency. I believe that the division of Scotland into administrative areas for forestry may be unnecessary when looking at a national outlook and strategy. I believe that decisions should be taken by the chief forester, which is why I am happy to support amendment 102, which would create such a role, but I think that, in putting area foresters into primary legislation, we would be setting in law a structure that might not meet the future governance needs of forestry.

In a similar tone, amendments 104 and 105 concern the creation of a national advisory group and local partnership groups. I have absolutely no doubt that Rhoda Grant has good intentions behind those amendments, but I feel that what those amendments propose would add unnecessary bureaucracy to proceedings. In any case, they could have unintended consequences in the sense that decisions made by future Governments could be hindered or disrupted if there were too many layers and levels in the decision-making process.

That said, I am happy to support amendment 107, which reverts regulatory powers to the chief forester. That amendment supports amendment 102, which creates that role, and it logically places regulatory responsibilities on that new role, if it goes ahead. However, I cannot support amendment 108, because it links back to the creation of the area foresters, which I do not support.

Finally, I will address amendment 136, in the name of Claudia Beamish. In my view, it is a welcome addition to the bill that addresses many of the concerns that we heard about over the course of stage 1 proceedings. I pay particular attention to proposed new subsection (3B), which I believe would increase accountability and scrutiny on the part of the Parliament of the Government’s next steps as it makes the bold move of integrating the Forestry Commission’s functions into its own departments. It also includes welcome additions to address some of the concerns that we heard about from witnesses concerning the loss of expertise, restructuring and the financial reporting and accountability of the department, as listed in proposed new subsection (3B). I would, therefore, be happy to support amendment 136. I also think that the cabinet secretary should take heed of the general comments that Claudia Beamish has made about the intention behind the amendment.

John Finnie

I speak in support of the amendments in the names of my colleagues Rhoda Grant and Claudia Beamish.

On amendment 104, we heard that there is a lot of affection for the Forestry Commission as it is presently structured, but we also heard concerns about the potential absorption of the commission into the Scottish Government and the potential loss of forestry expertise and professionalism.

Amendment 102 is entirely in line with not only what was said in the stage 1 report but also, as Rhoda Grant said, local authorities’ positions. It is also entirely in line with the views of people involved in the Scottish Government, such as the chief medical officer, the chief scientist and the chief planner.

On amendment 103, it will surprise no one that the Green Party wants things to be done from the local level up. Rather than there being an exclusive focus on the central functions, it is important that there is a clear responsibility laid out for the area. I therefore take issue with Jamie Greene’s view that the amendment is not needed. That approach will always be needed. There is no point in having central functions unless there is something to oversee.

Jamie Greene

I share the view that decisions can and should be made at a local level. However, should it not be for the chief forester to make decisions about how he organises his team structurally instead of having that imposed on him in primary legislation? That is why there is a concern around the creation of area foresters.

John Finnie

Whoever the person—he or she—who assumes that role might be, it is important that the Parliament gives a clear steer that local decision making is important. That could be followed by a more strategic approach.

I hope that the Scottish Government will support the creation of a national advisory group. That would be entirely consistent with decisions that it has taken in relation to other matters—the committee has dealt with issues around the National Council of Rural Advisers, for instance.

I will support amendment 105, although I have some concerns about subsection 1(b), which deals with the establishment of working groups. I hope that that can be looked at creatively, as a number of local fora exist that could fulfil some if not the vast majority of those functions. Again, the proposal is entirely in line with the design that we are looking for. We want collaborative local working.

I will say no more about Claudia Beamish’s amendment than that I fully support it and the direction that it would take us in.

Stewart Stevenson

I will pick up on wording again. Amendment 102 talks about the chief forester “assisting and advising” Scottish ministers. I might know what is meant by “advising”, but I am not quite sure what is meant by “assisting”. Amendment 104 says that the national advisory group will simply advise ministers—it does not use the word “assist”. Amendment 105 talks about the ministers being assisted and advised.

Leaving aside the immense burden of the hugely complex—that is just my personal view—oversight that appears to be desired, what will happen when the pieces of advice from those different levels are in conflict with each other? There would be a mandatory requirement for advice to be taken. If we were to accept the proposals in total—

John Finnie

Would you not accept that that is day-to-day politics? Ministers are often compelled to make decisions on the basis of competing pieces of advice.

Stewart Stevenson

Of course, and ministers discharging their responsibilities under this legislation—and many other pieces of legislation—would wish to consult and take advice, because anything that helps ministers to do the best job that they can do is to be welcomed.

However, I am not clear why we should create a structure in which the national advisory group, in particular, can be seen to undercut and cut across the functions of a chief forester. I think that that is not a comfortable place to be legislatively. Local partnership groups could be in conflict with the national advisory group, and that is not particularly helpful. I would have thought that, if you were going to create structures like this, there should be empowerment of local decision making, as there is at the moment and as there would be even if we did not pass any of the amendments.

I just think that the construct is difficult; I am not necessarily tackling the wider issues of principle, which we will hear about from the minister. If we were to pass all the proposals, the construct could be a recipe for unhelpful conflicts. I also do not know what the word “assisting” means.

Mike Rumbles

I am always astonished by the contributions of my colleague Stewart Stevenson, and I am astonished that he does not know what the word “assisting” means. It is perfectly obvious to me what “assisting and advising” ministers is all about—but there we are.

I am also astonished to be in complete agreement with my colleague John Finnie.

John Finnie

Maybe I should check my notes.

Mike Rumbles

Obviously, he is also astonished by that. I am with him 100 per cent on everything that he has said on the issue, which is really important. The amendments reflect the evidence that we received at stage 1 and the stage 1 report that we produced, and I hope that the minister will accept them.

We have not heard the minister’s response yet, but I understand that ministers can find a reason to reject any Opposition amendment through focusing on a particular word because it could cause confusion or difficulties and that they can persuade members to vote against such amendments. As I said, we have not heard the minister’s response yet—indeed, I could be completely surprised by what he says; he could say that the amendments are really good and that the Government accepts them—but I would prefer to see amendments 102 to 105 and 107, 108 and 136 in the bill. If the minister thinks that they could be improved at stage 3, I would still prefer to see them included in the bill at this stage, because they reflect the evidence that we have received, the committee report that we produced, and probably—although we do not know this yet—the views of the majority of committee members. I hope that we will see the amendments included in the bill. If the minister thinks that they need to be tweaked, he can lodge amendments that we can all support at stage 3.

Peter Chapman

It appears that there is a lot of astonishment around the table. I reflect that to some extent, because I am quite astonished that I agree with a lot of what of Stewart Stevenson has said. I am not so astonished that I agree with my colleague Jamie Greene, as that is almost expected, but I agree that the chief forester position received wide support when the committee took evidence. Many stakeholders agreed that that is an important post to put in place. Therefore, I agree with amendment 102, but I do not agree with amendments 103 to 105. The process would be too bureaucratic and cumbersome, and it would add another level of complication. Too many layers can stop things happening.

Amendment 107 is okay, because it refers back to the chief forester, but I do not agree with amendment 108.

I welcome and support Claudia Beamish’s amendment 136. It would be a fair addition to the bill, and there is a lot of support for it out there. The union people in particular are certainly keen to see something along those lines included in the bill.

Fergus Ewing

I thank Rhoda Grant and Claudia Beamish for lodging their amendments, for the way in which they have spoken to them, and for the whole tone of the debate.

I will start off with a very clear response to Mr Rumbles’s invitation. I have quite a lot to say, some of which is intended for the consumption of people around Scotland who work for Forestry Commission Scotland or Forest Enterprise Scotland. I want to place that on the record to provide reassurances to them, and that may take some time. However, for the sake of clarity, I make an undertaking to members that I will continue, as we did prior to stage 2, to work closely with all members prior to stage 3 with a view to going as far as we possibly can to meet members’ desires and, in particular, to bring some of the proposals into the bill if we can. I start off with that undertaking—in this non-scripted part of my remarks—as I very much want to continue the way that we have been working thus far. We can make progress on many aspects.

I fully recognise the importance of ensuring that people who have the right professional skills, knowledge and experience are engaged in the development and the delivery of forestry in Scotland.

A concern about centralisation exists. Over the summer, I visited all the conservancies, and I heard that concern from individuals. I want to make it absolutely clear that we will not be bringing in people from the local offices to work in the centre. We value people who work in the conservancies. They work locally, that work is essential, and it is essential that they continue to do that work. Meeting them in person allowed me to see how important that was, so I am grateful for the opportunity to state that today.

I want to go further. I want to expand on the existing skills development mechanisms within Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland, and continue to involve foresters and other professionals in the discharge of the Scottish Government’s forestry function.

Our proposed structure is to establish a dedicated division and to retain an agency, which we will call forestry and land Scotland. Both will be part of the Scottish Government. That is as close to a lift and shift of the current arrangements as possible. We are transferring the functions of forestry commissioners to Scottish ministers and transferring the existing staff to undertake the functions.

The decisions on the new structures that I announced in May preserve—they do not disrupt or separate—the distinction between the two entities, Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland. Therefore, we will retain two entities.

I am not suggesting that this has been the case today, but some criticism has been based on a false premise that there is one entity at the moment. There is not. There are, and there will continue to be, two entities.

Retaining the separation between the two parts maintains, as I think that Simon Hodge said in evidence, the valuable financial flexibilities that FES currently enjoys. For example, the ability to carry over funding from one year to another would be lost without the retention of FES in the agency format. That was a significant and important practical factor.

Throughout the process, the day-to-day forestry functions and operations should be disrupted as little as possible. Therefore, I restate to those with an interest that there will be no compulsory redundancies in FES or FCS as a result of devolution; local offices will remain as the vital source of regional knowledge, skills and delivery; and forestry decisions will continue to be taken by forestry experts. I specifically give those undertakings on the record today. They are very sincerely and freely given, because those are the right things to do.

Staff will remain as civil servants on transfer to the Scottish Government. Put simply, the same experts will be delivering the same functions as they do now, at a national level and locally.

A forestry devolution programme board involving senior staff from the Scottish Government and the Forestry Commission has been established to plan for and manage the transition. As part of that work, I am grateful for the positive leadership role that Simon Hodge, the chief executive of FES, and Jo O’Hara, the head of Forestry Commission Scotland, are showing in leading on the implementation of the new agency and new division projects. A lot of work has been going on, is going on, and will continue to be done behind the scenes, and rightly so.

The projects are based on skills retention, including identifying ways to continue to recognise and value engagement with professional bodies, and identifying jobs that require specific professional qualifications, such as in forestry. Staff interchange between the division and the agency, both of which will be part of the Scottish Government, will continue to be encouraged, as it is now between FCS and FES.

This next part is important, and I think that it deals substantially with Claudia Beamish’s amendment 136. At stage 1, I committed to providing a statement providing further details on how ministers will manage and administer their forestry responsibilities and the relationship between the dedicated forestry division and forestry and land Scotland. I confirm that I will make that statement available before stage 3. I want to do that, so that members have the statement that will cover those matters prior to stage 3.

When I say prior to stage 3, that obviously includes leaving sufficient time for members to consider the statement in order to decide whether further amendments would be required as part of the stage 3 debate. I want to make it clear today that I have decided to make that statement prior to stage 3.

Such an approach was supported by the committee at stage 1 and by stakeholders in their stage 2 briefings. Confor, for example, states that the details of a chief forester post, the division and forestry and land Scotland would be better set out in a statement “alongside the bill”. I will come back to the amendment on that, because it is very important.

On Rhoda Grant’s amendments 102 and 107, I am giving active consideration to having a chief forester role as a way of recognising the importance of specialist forestry expertise. I have been taking soundings from stakeholders and although there is widespread support for the idea of a chief forester or a similar role, there does not seem to be a common view on the role or its title. It seems to me that further work is required on what the role or purpose of that post would be. Some people envisage the post as having a regulatory function; other people envisage it in relation to skills and education and ensuring the importance of delivering those. In other words, different people have different concepts and ideas about what such a role would involve. In urging Rhoda Grant not to press her amendments, I will say that I am sympathetic to her proposal and I undertake to give it further consideration. I also undertake to have further discussions on that topic with members who wish to do so, including committee members and members who take an interest but are not on the committee, such as Claudia Beamish, prior to stage 3.

As for amendments 103 and 108 on “area foresters”, I am not quite clear about their effect. We have five conservancies at the moment and we already have five conservators. The use of the word “conservator” is very important. It gives a sense of a calling and the ethos of those who work for the Forestry Commission. It is a great personal achievement to become a conservator and those who become conservators are themselves professional foresters who are proud of their calling. I am not quite clear what is meant by “area foresters” as opposed to “conservators” and how that would fit in, although I know that the amendments are well intentioned.

I have already made a commitment that the local office network will remain and that forestry decisions will continue to be made by forestry experts. I want to make a further comment about the proposal in amendment 102 to have a chief forester. I have had an opportunity to examine how similar roles have been established in Government. It is important to note that that research has revealed that the roles set out in statute are limited to the non-ministerial office holders as determined by the Scotland Act 1998—that founding statute of devolution. Those are the chief medical officer for Scotland, the keeper of the registers of Scotland, and other chief roles such as the chief planner and the chief economist. In other words, the type of role that I think we are speaking about is not set out in statute.

We also need to be mindful of which issues are reserved and which are devolved. The civil service is a reserved matter, and we need to be mindful of that when framing legislation. There are two types of chiefs at the moment—statutory chiefs and non-statutory chiefs—and we have to be careful about how we proceed. However, I think that we can find a way forward, working together, so that the people who have informed this debate—the stakeholders—can realise their objectives with a bit of further thought and work.

I would also respectfully point out to Rhoda Grant that other than the reference to assisting and advising, amendment 102 provides no clear definition of what the role of chief forester would be. In fact, it would allow Scottish ministers to “prescribe qualifications”, so it would confer a backroom power on ministers to have a substantial role, which may not match the thinking of many of those who might want a chief forester to have a degree of independence from ministers. That is one further matter that needs to be explored.

Jamie Greene

Is there not a slight contradiction in what the cabinet secretary says? The fact that amendment 102 does not prescribe the role gives ministers some flexibility to work with protagonists to develop it. Amendment 102 is an important amendment, but all that it does is to ensure that the role is created, and there is widespread support for that.

Fergus Ewing

I understand Mr Greene’s point, but I respectfully suggest that the way in which amendment 102 would amend the bill would mean that the chief forester would not be independent of the Scottish ministers. Perhaps many of the people who advocate there being a chief forester do so precisely because they would like that role to be independent of the Scottish ministers. It is certainly the case that the role is not particularly well defined in amendment 102, other than the amendment saying that the role should involve “assisting and advising” the Scottish ministers.

However, I re-emphasise the point that I am sympathetic to the proposal and believe that further work together would result in us being able to overcome some of the technical objections. That is why I hope that Ms Grant and Ms Beamish will not press or move their amendments. Nonetheless, I have some further comments to make because of the wide range of topics that the amendments cover.

I wholeheartedly endorse the need for close engagement with stakeholders across all aspects of forestry. It is essential. I hope that I have illustrated by the work that we have done since the most recent Scottish election that we regularly engage with stakeholders nationally and locally on specific issues, for example through the reference group that was set up to advise on the delivery of Jim Mackinnon’s recommendations, and on more general matters, such as through the forestry summits that I have hosted or the regional groups that provide local advice and input to the work of Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland.

Effective engagement is essential. I undertake to give further thought to whether there is scope for incorporating some commitment to that effect in the bill. I am not yet convinced that that is the best way forward, because any Government will wish to ensure that there is local and national engagement with stakeholders. The Scottish Government as a whole cannot be accused of failing to do that. Nonetheless, I am happy to give the undertaking that we will give further consideration to the amendments. I do so because I am aware that people still have some issues.

I hope that my commitment to provide, in advance of stage 3, a statement on the organisational arrangements to help ministers to deliver their forestry functions will persuade Claudia Beamish that amendment 136 should not be moved at this point. I say that as someone who has engaged substantially with workforce representatives, with whom I had at least three meetings of substance over the past year or so, and who will continue to do so.

Claudia Beamish

If the statement is not to be in the bill—understandably, because it might need some adaption in future—will the cabinet secretary clarify what its status will be?

Fergus Ewing

I hesitated slightly because it is partly a legal question, but it would be a statement of ministerial intent similar to any ministerial statement. It is intended to clarify the questions that underlie amendment 136. I hope that that is helpful to Ms Beamish. The statement will certainly cover many of the areas on which she seeks assurances through the amendment.

There is another, important reason why I cannot support amendment 136. Constraining ministers’ powers to commence legislation that Parliament has already approved strikes at the core element of any act. I am not aware of any precedent of such a provision in any bill that prevents the bill from becoming law once it is enacted. Once Parliament decides to pass a law, that is its decision.

I should say that I am informed that it is extremely rare in statute—I may have said that it has not occurred at all. I am not aware of any such example but I will just correct that point for that record.

It is essential for the effective operation of the legislative process that ministers have control over when they bring provisions into force. Amendment 136 refers only to two sections, but in effect it would mean that we could not practicably commence large parts of the act. For example, we could not commence part 4 without laying the report, otherwise two felling authorisation processes would be in place. That would subvert the very advice that the committee gave; it wanted there to be no gap in respect of the felling provision. That is a technical point, which needs to be considered in any event. We could be looking at delayed timescales for implementation and increased uncertainty for the sector and for staff. I am sure that that is not what anyone would wish to achieve.

The approach that I have been suggesting throughout stage 2 is one that illustrates the effectiveness of the parliamentary process. We are not seeking to score points but working together to get the best outcome. I have given what I hope are clear undertakings today, signifying that the matters raised are substantial and important and that I respect the views of members. I undertake not only to make a statement but to work specifically on the content and substance of the amendments from now until stage 3, in particular in relation to having a chief forester post, something to which I am sympathetic, but also in relation to the other matters that we have discussed today.

I hope, given my somewhat long contribution today—for which I apologise—that members will accept at face value that my undertakings to work with members over the coming weeks are genuine and sincere. On that basis, I urge Ms Grant not to press amendment 102 at this time.

Rhoda Grant

I appreciate members’ comments, which were really helpful. My amendments are really designed to try to keep forestry rooted in the industry and the communities that it serves. I appreciate that there are layers in my amendments that may be a bit off-putting to some people, but those layers are designed to try to keep forestry well within the industry at not only the national level but the local level. I appreciate what people are saying about some of the layers and that they may be too complex. However, I hope that I can take the cabinet secretary up on his offer to look at putting in legislation something regarding the conservators and the like, which would keep that aspect local.

Stewart Stevenson had issues with the word “assisting”. I realised very quickly that he was not assisting me with his comment. [Laughter.] If that helps to explain it a little better to him, I hope that he will take it in the spirit that it was meant.

The most important amendment is amendment 102, on the chief forester. I think that it was very clear in the evidence that we got that such a role was wanted by the industry and indeed by communities. The reason that the definition is vague is to allow that consultation to go ahead so that the role will be meaningful and supported by the whole industry and the communities. It is important to put that down on the bill as a marker. The definition can be changed at stage 3 to make it fit people’s views and aspirations, but it is important to put it down today as a marker and then maybe consult on the other amendments in the group to see whether they could be shaped in a way that would assist with the post of chief forester and keep it locally placed.

I press amendment 102.

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 102 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con))
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)

Against

Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 102 agreed to.

Amendments 103 to 105 not moved.

Section 65—Regulations

Amendment 106 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Amendment 107 moved—[Rhoda Grant].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 107 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con))
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)

Against

Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 107 agreed to.

Amendment 108 not moved.

Section 65, as amended, agreed to.

Section 66 agreed to.

Section 67—Interpretation

Amendment 109 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 67, as amended, agreed to.

Section 68 agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Sections 69 to 71 agreed to.

Schedule 3—Modifications of enactments

Amendment 110 moved—[Richard Lyle]—and agreed to.

Amendment 111 to 114 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 72 and 73 agreed to.

Section 74—Commencement

The Convener

Amendment 136, in the name of Claudia Beamish, has already been debated with amendment 102. Claudia—do you intend to move or not move the amendment?

Claudia Beamish

I do not intend to move the amendment today, but I would like to make a brief comment, if that is acceptable.

The Convener

Yes—you may make a very brief comment.

Claudia Beamish

Thank you. I note what the cabinet secretary has said. I also note the comments from Jamie Greene, John Finnie, Mike Rumbles, Peter Chapman, and Rhoda Grant, which are on the record. I think that it is extremely important that the discussion continue because there appears to be some confusion in the minds of stakeholders and elsewhere. I ask the cabinet secretary to correct me if appropriate, but I think that he said that it would be a case of “lift and shift”, as much as possible, of the arrangements of the agencies as they are now, when they are devolved. However, that is not the perception—I use that word with care—of some stakeholders who have discussed what will happen with me and others, so I have a concern about that.

I note the offer of a statement before stage 3, which I urge the cabinet secretary to make sure comes in good time, but there are still serious concerns. I intend to discuss the possibility either of a member of the committee lodging an amendment at stage 3 on a unified forestry agency, or my lodging a better-developed version of amendment 136, if we cannot make progress with the cabinet secretary—which I, as an optimist, hope we will be able to do.

The Convener

I do not propose to open up the matter to further debate, because we have already debated it, and the cabinet secretary has given an undertaking. I note Claudia Beamish’s comments. I take it that you do not wish to move amendment 136.

Claudia Beamish

I do not wish to move it.

Mike Rumbles

I would like to move amendment 136, convener.

Amendment 136 moved—[Mike Rumbles].

The Convener

The question is, that amendment 136 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener

There will be a division.

For

Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con))
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)

Against

Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

The Convener

The result of the division is: For 5, Against 6, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 136 disagreed to.

Section 74 agreed to.

Section 75 agreed to.

Long title

Amendment 115 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Long title, as amended, agreed to.

The Convener

That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. The bill will now be reprinted as amended, and will be available online and in hard copy at 8.30 am tomorrow. Parliament has not yet determined when stage 3 will take place, but members can now lodge stage 3 amendments at any time with the legislation team. Members will be informed of the deadline for amendments once it has been determined.

That concludes today’s business.

The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the revised marshalled list and the revised groupings. For the first division of the afternoon, the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes. The period of voting for that first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, there will be one minute for each vote.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

After section 1

The Presiding Officer

Amendment 29, in the name of Colin Smyth, is grouped with amendment 31.

Colin Smyth (South Scotland) (Lab)

Like members across the Parliament, I support the bill’s ambition to promote the sustainable management of forestry and the management of land for sustainable development. Amendment 29 is intended to ensure that the individual provisions of the bill are underpinned by a clear statement of those ambitions.

There is always a risk that ambiguous wording or narrow analysis of passages in a bill will result in unintended or distorted interpretations. Amendment 29 would help to protect against that risk, by ensuring that elements of the bill could not be taken out of context or wilfully misunderstood. A purpose section is not unique; such sections exist in other Government legislation.

During stage 2, my colleague Rhoda Grant lodged an amendment that would have inserted a purpose section. The amendment was supported by the Greens at that stage. John Finnie said that the proposed new section was

“a worthwhile addition to the legislation that is in front of us.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 6 December 2017; c 3.]

Conservative member of the Scottish Parliament Jamie Greene said:

“in principle, we agree with Rhoda Grant’s suggestion that there should be an overarching purpose to the bill.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 6 December 2017; c 2.]

However, the Conservatives had concerns about the wording of the amendment, which they thought was “not sufficiently encompassing.”

Scottish National Party MSP John Mason said:

“A purpose section for a bill is an extremely good thing ... Such a section clarifies things and helps the courts to look at the spirit, rather than just the letter, of the law.”

He went on to say:

“However, like Jamie Greene, I have reservations about the wording of this particular purpose section.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 6 December 2017; c 2-3.]

The cabinet secretary said that he shared and applauded the sentiments of Rhoda Grant and John Finnie in proposing a purpose section, but he, too, expressed concern about the wording. I have therefore looked carefully at the wording of Rhoda Grant’s amendment, and I have amended it considerably to take account of members’ concerns.

I have no objection to amendment 31, in Fergus Ewing’s name, but it will not add a great deal to the bill, if anything—certainly it will not add an overarching purpose. Labour will support amendment 31, but I urge members to strengthen the bill by supporting amendment 29.

I move amendment 29.

The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity (Fergus Ewing)

I share members’ ambitions for forestry in Scotland and I appreciate the good intentions of those who want to make clear our shared commitment to forestry and the purposes of forestry in future. I fully understand why some members want to see that commitment in the bill but, although I am sympathetic to the rationale behind amendment 29, I am afraid that I cannot support it.

That is because there are significant legal complexities to do with introducing a purpose section to a bill. All the sections of a bill must have legal effect and be capable of interpretation by a court. A purpose provision sits behind the individual sections of a bill and can affect how each is interpreted. Issues arise if the purpose is not relevant to every provision or duplicates or expands provisions.

The purpose that is proposed in amendment 29 would introduce legal uncertainty about how the powers and duties in the bill might be exercised. It therefore brings potential risk to the interpretation and operability of the bill, which is something that I am sure Mr Smyth does not intend and that I cannot support. The purpose that is proposed in amendment 29 is in two parts, both of which must apply at the same time to every section. However, neither part fully covers the purpose of every section in the bill, and neither can be properly applied to every section.

For those legal reasons, I regret that I cannot support amendment 29. However, I have listened carefully to the aspirations of many members for a demonstration of ambition in the bill, so I suggest an alternative approach to address those aspirations, which responds to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s stage 1 recommendation that the bill contain a “statement of ambition” for modern forestry practice. I propose, via amendment 31, that the forestry strategy

“must set out a vision for forestry in Scotland”.

The strategy will be consulted on, so there will be opportunities for all stakeholders to contribute to the development of that vision, which must be a good thing. Ministers will be held to account for the strategy’s delivery and must, every three years, report to the Parliament on progress, including on delivery of the vision. I hope that that will serve as a risk-free alternative to the approach that Colin Smyth has proposed.

I offer amendment 31 in the spirit of compromise and seeking consensus on the vital issue of demonstrating our shared ambitions for forestry. Scottish Land & Estates supports the approach, and I hope that members will support amendment 31 as an alternative to amendment 29.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

I declare an interest as a farmer and a partner in a farming business in the north-east, although we do not have any commercial woodland on our farm.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments on the amendments that were agreed at stage 2, which I believe have strengthened the bill.

The Scottish Conservatives will not support amendment 29 in the name of Colin Smyth. Although as a group we supported the principle of including an overarching statement of purpose in the bill, we now believe that that addition is not required and is not consistent with the bill’s long title. We cannot support the term “sustainable development” being put in the bill as a defining purpose, because the term has never been properly defined.

We support amendment 31, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Forestry is a long-term industry, and placing a duty on ministers to set out their vision in the forestry strategy will help to outline their goals for the industry and help those goals to be carried forward and adapted through each revision of the strategy.

I hope that the vision will include planting targets, which I have spoken about with the cabinet secretary. As the purpose of the bill is to grow our forestry industry, including measurable targets would be a logical addition for any future visions that the Government sets out in the strategy.

John Finnie (Highlands and Islands) (Green)

The Scottish Green Party will continue our support for this approach from Colin Smyth. It is important to see where it comes in the proposed legislation—obviously, it is right at the start, as an overview of the bill. People have talked about the ambition that is inherent in the bill, and they want clarity and direction.

I listened intently to and understand what the cabinet secretary said. Clearly, things are open to interpretation. Like Mr Smyth, we will support the cabinet secretary’s amendment 31, but we also support Colin Smyth’s amendment 29.

John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)

Briefly, I think that it is a good idea to have a purpose section in a bill. Ideally, it should be written out at the beginning of the process so that the rest of the bill follows on from it, rather than put in towards the end, as is currently proposed. As Peter Chapman said, there might be reservations about the wording and whether it fits in. However, as I think I said at stage 2, the principle of having a purpose section in the bill holds good, as it will help the courts focus not only on the letter but on the spirit of the law.

Colin Smyth

Very briefly, I simply reiterate that the wording of the proposed purpose section underpins and does not put at risk the implementation of the individual sections in the bill. Similar purpose sections are included in other Government legislation, and I see no reason why this one should not be included in such an important bill.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 29 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. As this is the first division of the proceedings, I suspend the Parliament for five minutes to call members to the chamber.

The Presiding Officer

We move to the division on amendment 29.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 33, Against 91, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 29 disagreed to.

Section 2—Duty to promote sustainable forest management

The Presiding Officer

Amendment 30, in the name of Colin Smyth, is in a group on its own.

Colin Smyth

Amendment 30 seeks to extend the bill’s proposed statutory duty to promote sustainable forest management from ministers to other public bodies. The duty that is placed on ministers is a positive step, but we have an opportunity to go further and in doing so to implement recommendation 65 in the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s stage 1 report on the bill. That recommendation stated:

“The Committee recognises the benefits of sustainable forest management and agrees with those who suggested in evidence that there would be advantage in extending the duty. It therefore recommends that the Scottish Government gives consideration to extending the duty to promote sustainable forest management to all relevant public bodies.”

I am unsure why the Scottish Government said, in its response to that report, that it would consider that recommendation carefully but has not yet done so. We have an opportunity today to implement the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s unanimous recommendation and, by doing so, to help mainstream forestry and ensure a wider regard for issues affecting the sector.

Forestry impacts on and is impacted by a wide range of other policy areas. Extending the duty to all public bodies would reflect that and promote an integrated approach. Let me be clear—amendment 30 would not place unreasonable demands on public bodies. As the wording states carefully, the requirement would apply only

“so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of”

their functions.

The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 places a similar duty on public bodies in relation to biodiversity. Indeed, the wording in that act is the same as the wording in my amendment. That duty has been effective in advancing biodiversity and, critically, it has not undermined the ability of the affected bodies to operate. It would be bizarre and lacking in credibility for the Scottish Government to support such a duty in the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 and then to claim that it is either unworkable or undesirable for the same duty to be contained in the bill.

I move amendment 30 and urge members to support it.

Peter Chapman

As the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee said in its stage 1 report:

“The Committee recognises the benefits of sustainable forest management and agrees with those who suggested in evidence that there would be an advantage in extending the duty. It therefore recommends that the Scottish Government gives consideration to extending the duty to promote sustainable forest management to all relevant public bodies.”

We will support amendment 30.

Fergus Ewing

I thank Colin Smyth for highlighting the fact that sustainable forest management is not just the responsibility of one part of Government. The need to mainstream sustainable forestry in Scotland is one of the primary reasons for completing devolution.

Amendment 30 would not address the primary threat to sustainable forest management in Scotland, which is illegal felling. That is addressed by the amendments in group 7, which propose powers to stop suspected illegal activity immediately to allow proper investigation.

I am confident that the vast majority of forest management in Scotland is sustainable. However, I recognise that tree felling that is permitted, for example, as part of planning consent requires careful handling to ensure that it follows sustainable forest management principles. That is why Scottish planning policy includes the control of woodland removal policy, which requires appropriate compensatory planting when forest areas are cleared for development.

The requirement is having an impact. I note, for example, that the annual loss of ancient semi-natural woodland had reduced to an estimated 1.2 hectares per annum in 2016 compared with previous estimates reported in 2014. The Planning (Scotland) Bill, which is currently at stage 1, proposes that Scottish planning policy is given strengthened statutory status as part of the development plan. Those planning matters therefore go some way to achieving what Colin Smyth has set out to achieve.

As a further example of proportionate action, we will work in partnership with the sector to find ways of using new satellite imagery to provide better information on felling to enable us to act more quickly and decisively if we identify unsustainable activity.

In comparison, amendment 30 would place a duty on all Scottish public authorities to promote sustainable forestry across all their functions. While the amendment is well intentioned, I believe that it goes too far. There are hundreds of public authorities—for example, the chief dental officer, the Accountant in Bankruptcy, and many others—that do not have an obvious connection with forestry.

I recognise the attempt to limit the scope of the duty by including the phrase

“so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of”

the authorities’ functions, but in law that would not limit the requirement for every Scottish public authority, including the chief dental officer, the Accountant in Bankruptcy and a plethora of other public bodies, to assess the extent to which the promotion of sustainable forest management is or is not consistent with each of their many functions.

Plainly, that would be a nonsense. Ensuring that forestry is at the heart of Government, strengthening implementation of the control of woodland removal policy and improving information on felling activity are, I submit, a more effective and proportionate approach to ensuring the objective of the sustainable management of Scotland’s forests and woodlands. I therefore argue that amendment 30 is not required.

For all those reasons, I encourage Mr Smyth not to press his amendment. If he presses the amendment, I encourage members not to support it.

John Finnie

I support amendment 30. I listened intently to the cabinet secretary and everything centres around the words; Mr Smyth is encouraging a consistent approach across the public sector, and I think that we should all sign up to that. The word “nonsense” was used. Realistically, no one would interpret amendment 30 as meaning that dental practitioners, administrators or indeed the Accountant in Bankruptcy should do anything practical in that regard. Amendment 30 gives the public sector a direction of travel and I support it.

Colin Smyth

The proposal in amendment 30 was a clear recommendation by the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. It is consistent with provisions in other legislation such as the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 and the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009. By agreeing to amendment 30, we would underpin the importance of forestry across public bodies. I am therefore happy to press amendment 30.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 63, Against 61, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 30 agreed to.

Section 3—Duty to prepare forestry strategy

Amendment 31 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Amendment 3, in the name of John Finnie, is grouped with amendments 41, 4, 32 to 37, 5 and 6.

John Finnie

During stages 1 and 2, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee discussed the important issue of woodland creation and how the bill could best ensure that there is a strong policy commitment from the Scottish Government on the matter. Woodland creation is good for the economy because it secures future supply to the timber trade, is good for the environment and brings considerable social benefits. The committee concluded that the most appropriate place for such a commitment would be the forestry strategy; I agree with that approach.

Peter Chapman, Richard Lyle and I all lodged stage 2 amendments that would have required the strategy to cover that important issue, although we all took slightly different approaches and used slightly different phrasing. My focus was, and still is, on the importance of creating native woodland. I have highlighted the importance of promoting native woodland in recent meetings with the cabinet secretary, and will continue to champion the cause.

The underlying principle behind each of the stage 2 amendments on the topic was the same: it is important that the strategy contains policies, priorities and objectives on creating woodland of all types. The cabinet secretary indicated at stage 2 that he would be supportive of such an amendment, so I am pleased to have lodged amendment 3.

I encourage members to support amendment 3. We will support all the other amendments in the group.

I move amendment 3.

The Presiding Officer

I call Peter Chapman to speak to amendment 41 and the other amendments in the group.

Peter Chapman (North East Scotland) (Con)

I will move amendment 41, in my name, which would require ministers to include planting targets in the forestry strategy. The main benefit that we want from the bill is more trees being planted. Amendment 41 is logical in that what it proposes would lead to measurable targets throughout each report on the strategy, and it would ensure continuity, even with a change of Government.

We will support all the amendments in the group, other than amendments 6, 33 and 34, which we do not think would strengthen the strategy. My colleague Jamie Greene will speak to the other amendments in the group in more detail.

The Presiding Officer

I call Graeme Dey to speak to amendment 4 and the other amendments in the group.

Graeme Dey (Angus South) (SNP)

The bill includes an important new duty on Scottish ministers that has been welcomed by all parties and by stakeholders: namely, a statutory requirement to publish a forestry strategy. That is a big improvement on the current legislation and it is the centrepiece of the bill. The statutory framework for the strategy was improved by amendments at stage 2—specifically, the consultation requirements were enhanced by an amendment from Fulton MacGregor, and requirements on ministers to report on progress were introduced by an amendment from John Finnie.

In response to concern from members, the cabinet secretary acknowledged at stage 2 that more could be done to ensure that the strategy is kept up to date. I note that the current non-statutory forestry strategy is now more than 10 years old. The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee discussed the long-term nature of forestry and how to balance that with Parliament’s role in scrutinising progress and ensuring that the strategy does not gather dust. Suggestions for appropriate review and revision arrangements were lodged as amendments but not moved, following a signal from the cabinet secretary that he would support a proportionate approach for a cycle of no more than 10 years. I am pleased to offer an approach in amendment 4 that will meet those objectives, so I hope that it will be supported by members and the Scottish Government. I encourage Parliament to support the amendments in my name and the other amendments in the group.

The Presiding Officer

Fulton MacGregor will speak to amendment 32 and the other amendments in the group.

Fulton MacGregor (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)

This year’s parliamentary scrutiny of the forestry strategy was discussed during the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s consideration of the bill at stages 1 and 2. Scottish ministers will be taking on new duties in relation to a Scottish forestry strategy, which will be key in setting out the Scottish Government’s ambitions on what is an important sector for the rural economy, and will be key in our climate change ambitions, including the promotion of sustainable forest management. Those ambitions are shared by everyone in Parliament.

Amendments were lodged at stage 2 by Rhoda Grant that proposed additional parliamentary procedures for consideration of the strategy before it is published and laid, and for a consultation report to be prepared to accompany it. It was acknowledged during the committee’s discussions at stage 2 that the suggested additional parliamentary procedures in Rhoda Grant’s amendments were not necessarily proportionate for the strategy, and could delay rather than enable its production. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary acknowledged the issues behind the amendments and committed to a best-practice approach in agreeing that Scottish ministers should commit to producing a consultation report to be laid alongside the strategy. I therefore hope that he and members will support my amendment 37, which would deliver on that commitment.

On scrutiny, I suggest that improvements that were made to the bill at stage 2 on wider consultation requirements and a duty on ministers to report on progress have strengthened considerably the process for the strategy. A further requirement is proposed by amendment 32, which is that ministers should consult on a draft of the strategy and not be required just to consult. That would enable stakeholders with a wide variety of interests to have sight of the strategy and to contribute fully to its development. That is a proportionate approach for a policy strategy, and has a precedent in the approach for the land use strategy, for example. I encourage all members to support amendments 32 and 37 and all others in the group.

The Presiding Officer

I call Claudia Beamish to speak to amendment 33 and the other amendments in the group.

Claudia Beamish (South Scotland) (Lab)

Amendments 33 to 35 all seek to ensure that Scottish ministers must have regard to existing legislation on climate change, biodiversity and deer management when preparing the forestry strategy.

Section 4 currently requires that regard be had to the land use strategy and the land rights and responsibilities statement. In my view and that of Scottish Labour, that regard should be expanded to include the similar fundamental issues in keeping the path of forestry sustainable. At stage 2, my colleague Rhoda Grant MSP highlighted the importance of grounding our practice internationally in order to preserve our climate change world leadership, especially in the context of Brexit. Forestry and land management have significant roles to play in climate change mitigation: amendment 33 aims to secure that focus in the bill.

Amendment 34 has similar intentions with regard to the code of practice on deer management. Deer are an important public asset, but Scotland has struggled for decades to control appropriately the huge deer populations in many areas of our country. The voluntary code of practice on deer management places a responsibility on all land managers to manage wild deer in conjunction with other land use objectives in the deer management groups. Unfortunately, slow progress is being made on that, but if we are to safeguard against deer populations spiralling out of control, it must be an important consideration in the forestry strategy.

Amendment 35 would ensure that ministers have regard to the Scottish biodiversity strategy. Our forests cover 17 per cent of Scotland and play host to significant proportions of our precious biodiversity.

I reiterate that those issues will not fade away or achieve completion and then be forgotten. All three require constant effort. The delivery of such wide policy objectives was highlighted by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, in its letter to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee at stage 1 and by the REC Committee itself. I recognise that the cabinet secretary expressed at stage 2 that bills should not include

“partial lists that risk becoming rapidly out of date.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 6 December 2017; c 25.]

However, the integration of those three issues—climate change, biodiversity and deer management—is integral to forestry and its long-term sustainable development. Therefore, they should be included.

I also highlight John Finnie’s amendment 3, on the creation of woodland—which is important especially in relation to native woodland, as he highlighted—and amendment 4 by Graeme Dey, on dates for the revision of the strategy, which builds on a stage 2 amendment. We will also support all the other amendments in the group.

Fergus Ewing

Amendments 3 and 41 are on the important topic of woodland creation under the forestry strategy. I am in full agreement with Mr Finnie and Mr Chapman that the strategy should include policies on that vital matter. Woodland creation is important to help us to achieve our climate change and biodiversity objectives as well as for securing future wood supply for our valuable wood processing sector.

I acknowledge Mr Finnie’s interest in native woodland and assure him and others that I fully recognise the benefits that such woods can bring. As an example, last year, I made available increased grant support for native woodland creation in the Highlands and Islands, and I am pleased to report that that has stimulated demand.

Amendment 3 refers to all woodland creation. It takes a broader approach than amendment 41, as it includes woodland created by planting new trees and natural reseeding. Amendment 41 partially duplicates amendment 3 but, taken together, they provide a strong signal supporting woodland expansion, so I am willing to support them both.

In supporting amendment 41, I should place on record the fact that it does not have the effect of requiring the strategy to contain targets for planting. Rather, it requires the strategy to

“include … objectives, priorities and policies with respect to”

targets. Those are different things. However, it is my intention that the strategy should reference the reason for planting more trees and the targets that we propose, scrutinise and agree with the Parliament.

Members will be aware that targets for woodland creation are set out in the Scottish Government’s climate change plan, which has been developed through extensive consultation and is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The latest plan was laid before Parliament on 6 March. The forestry strategy will refer to planting targets that are set out in the climate change plan and amendment 41 is consistent with that approach. I make it clear to members that that amendment will not introduce a parallel process for discussions on alternative targets but will helpfully run in tandem with those targets by allowing the approach to achieving them to be set out in the Scottish forestry strategy.

I am pleased to support amendments 4, 32, 37 and 5, which strengthen the process for producing the Scottish forestry strategy. They are helpful additions to the bill and I hope that there will be consensus in the chamber on them. Amendments 4 and 5 from Graeme Dey provide a proportionate review and revision cycle for the forestry strategy and build on the helpful addition to the bill at stage 2 of a three-yearly reporting cycle. Amendments 32 and 37 from Fulton MacGregor respond to recommendations on improving parliamentary scrutiny of the bill.

Amendment 36 in my name responds to the comments that were made at stages 1 and 2 about the importance of policy alignment between the new statutory forestry strategy and the many and varied economic, environmental and societal matters to which forestry contributes. It achieves that by requiring ministers to prepare and revise the strategy with a view to achieving consistency, so far as practicable, with all their other functions. I am pleased to note that Scottish Land & Estates and the Confederation of Forest Industries support that approach.

The requirement that ministers should look to achieve consistency in the strategy across all of their functions means that the matters that are identified in Claudia Beamish’s amendments 33 to 35 are captured by amendment 36. However, I fully acknowledge Claudia Beamish’s particular interest in the interactions between forestry and biodiversity, deer management and climate change. She has been a passionate advocate for improving policy alignment on those matters throughout the passage of the bill. I agree that they are important matters. Forestry is already making a meaningful contribution to biodiversity, climate change and deer management outcomes, and must continue so to do. I have listened to the arguments that have been put forward by Claudia Beamish and am prepared to support her amendments 33 to 35. I also encourage members to support my amendment 36, to provide alignment with the other relevant policies now and in the future.

Amendment 6 is a technical amendment to section 6A. In supporting John Finnie’s amendment 130 at stage 2, I signalled that I would lodge an amendment at stage 3 that would change the start of the reporting period for the three-yearly report that is required on the forestry strategy. I think that it is more appropriate for the reporting period to start when the forestry strategy is published, rather than start on the day after royal assent. It is our intention that the first statutory forestry strategy will be available by 1 April 2019. I have discussed that approach with John Finnie, and I hope that he and other members will support amendment 6.

I believe that the amendments in this group demonstrate the common view that we share of the importance of the Scottish forestry strategy and the significant role that it will play in driving forward the direction of Scottish forestry policy and delivery in years to come. I therefore support all the amendments in this group and hope that members across the chamber will do likewise, in a welcome outbreak of consensus on one of the key functions in the bill.

Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD)

I want to focus on Claudia Beamish’s amendments 33 to 35. Amendment 33 deals with article 2 of the Kyoto protocol, amendment 34 deals with deer management and amendment 35 deals with the Scottish biodiversity strategy.

I voted against such amendments when they came to the committee at stage 2, because I felt that they came out of the blue and that we had been given no chance at stage 1 to take evidence on any of them. However, time has passed and I see the amendments appearing again at stage 3. The issues that they address are worth while, so Claudia Beamish will be pleased to hear that I will be voting for them this time. However, I would like to put on record the fact that, if people want to address issues, it is helpful to everybody if they can ensure that the committees have the opportunity to take evidence on them at stage 1.

Claudia Beamish

Will the member take an intervention?

The Presiding Officer

Mr Rumbles has finished, Ms Beamish.

Jamie Greene (West Scotland) (Con)

I hate to be the one to break the consensus in the chamber, but I have some comments on the amendments. I will attempt to explain the rationale behind our approach.

On amendments 41 and 3, I support the concept of introducing targets for the planting of trees, which Peter Chapman’s amendment 41 deals with. It is no great secret that we have been failing to meet our planting targets for a fair number of years. I also support John Finnie’s amendment 3, on the creation of woodland. We see no harm in the inclusion of the additional wording, and I am pleased that the cabinet secretary agrees with that.

We are unable to support amendments 6, 33 and 34. We took a position on amendments 33 and 34 after stage 2. I appreciate that there is much merit in what the member is trying to accomplish with the amendments, but we believe that they unnecessarily complicate the bill with references to deer management and the Kyoto protocol. Those issues are adequately dealt with in other pieces of legislation, so the amendments are not entirely relevant to the bill. For example, with regard to amendment 33, our climate change targets are set out in the Kyoto protocol and have been in effect for nearly two decades. We felt no additional need for a provision in this bill in relation to them.

That said, we welcome amendment 35, on biodiversity. The biodiversity strategy vision for 2030 strongly supports the forestry industry’s conservation attempts and we feel that amendment 35 complements many of the objectives of the bill.

We are unable to support amendment 6, which, as we interpret it, might lead to an indefinite delay to the first reporting period. Unless any evidence can be suggested to the contrary, we will not support amendment 6.

Amendment 31 was debated and voted on previously. However, along with amendments 4, 5 and 36 it strengthens the requirement that the Government must set out its strategy over a nine-year period. Importantly, it would also mean that future Governments could deviate only after a fixed period. Forestry requires a long-term vision and strategy, and successive Governments should be required to pick up the work of previous Governments and see a strategy through. Our support for that is conditional, though, which is why we asked the cabinet secretary to ensure that the broadest possible consensus on the strategy is sought before it is delivered to Parliament.

John Finnie

This has been a good discussion. Consensus is always good, and in this case it reflects the committee’s scrutiny of the bill. I am a bit disappointed that Conservative colleagues will not support the amendments lodged by my colleague Claudia Beamish. I heard what Mr Rumbles said. The Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 has been referred to. The cabinet secretary summed it up well when he talked about policy alignment and the interaction between policies. Someone said that the issue is unnecessarily complicated. It is not. Deer eat trees, and we need a link between the two pieces of legislation. I would encourage people to see that as part of the strategy and vote for Claudia Beamish’s amendments, and indeed the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Amendment 41 moved—[Peter Chapman]—and agreed to.

Amendment 4 moved—[Graeme Dey]—and agreed to.

Section 4—Preparation of forestry strategy

Amendment 32 moved—[Fulton MacGregor]—and agreed to.

Amendment 33 moved—[Claudia Beamish].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 94, Against 30, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 33 agreed to.

Amendment 34 moved—[Claudia Beamish].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 34 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 94, Against 30, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 34 agreed to.

Amendment 35 moved—[Claudia Beamish]—and agreed to.

Amendment 36 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 5—Publication of forestry strategy

Amendment 37 moved—[Fulton MacGregor]—and agreed to.

Section 6A—Report on forestry strategy

Amendment 5 moved—[Graeme Dey]—and agreed to.

Amendment 6 moved—[Fergus Ewing].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 89, Against 35, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

After section 6A

The Presiding Officer

Amendment 38, in the name of Peter Chapman, is in a group on its own.

Peter Chapman

Amendment 38, in my name, is about research, which is an essential part of maintaining forested land and growing our forestry industry.

The issue of tree health research was raised by a number of stakeholders during stage 1 evidence on the bill, and I raised it again during stage 2. A number of members shared my concerns specifically about tree health research, but I agreed not to press my amendment at that stage and welcomed the cabinet secretary’s offer to work on an alternative. Therefore, amendment 38 seeks to safeguard research efforts by requiring that ministers have in place suitable arrangements for research. It anchors that requirement in the concept of sustainable forest management, which underpins the forestry functions in the bill. It also seeks to ensure consistency with the other forestry functions in the bill and to avoid unintended consequences by allowing a judgment to be made as to which arrangements are necessary.

The focus on sustainable forest management in the provisions should ensure that tree health needs are met and considered in a wider context. My understanding of how sustainable forestry management might work in practice is that it requires efforts to ensure that forests are managed to maximise their overall resilience and to take full advantage of the best scientific developments. I would welcome the cabinet secretary’s view on that and on how he sees tree health being addressed through such measures.

Finally—and crucially—amendment 38 allows for continued cross-border collaboration where that continues to be the most appropriate approach. It is essential and provides a statutory underpinning that makes clear the desirability of continued UK-wide co-operation on research and evidence relating to forestry into the future. I hope that all members will support my amendment.

I move amendment 38.

Claudia Beamish

I support Peter Chapman’s amendment 38. In the previous session of Parliament, the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee took a lot of evidence on tree health, which is fundamental to the future of forestry in Scotland and, indeed, in the UK. Resilience through the development of native seeds and seedlings is important, and it is also important that, as any disease develops, we are quick off the mark in assessing the dangers and commissioning research, as in the example of ash dieback. I understand that there is now a disease threat to Sitka spruce, and I am sure that the same quick reaction is happening there.

I also agree with Peter Chapman about cross-border working.

Fergus Ewing

During stages 1 and 2, we heard many calls for reassurance that devolution will not lead to a reduction in forestry research efforts, and I give members that assurance. Research that improves how we prevent and respond to forestry pests and diseases will continue to be a priority. I welcome the considered approach that Mr Chapman takes in his amendment 38. It will allow us to continue the important work that is being done in collaboration with other parts of the UK.

On the day of the stage 1 debate, we announced that Forest Research would continue as an agency of the forestry commissioners. As the chairman of the Forestry Commission, Sir Harry Studholme, said in his letter to me, forestry disease respects no borders.

Amendment 38 also maintains flexibility—for example, to supplement UK arrangements with work to answer questions of particular interest to Scotland. The new centre of expertise for plant health, which I launched last month, will build on the work that is already being driven forward by our chief plant health officer for Scotland, Professor Gerry Saddler, in collaboration with Forest Research. We are already taking action on the issue and we will maintain that effort.

I am heartened to see that the requirement is tied back to the duty to promote sustainable forest management. That will allow a rounded view to be taken of all aspects of forest management, including increasing our resilience to new pests and diseases. I see the approach as ensuring that Scotland’s forests, relying on the best research that the scientific community can provide, are the most resilient forests that we can grow.

I stated during stage 2 that I have sympathy for anyone who is working to provide a sure footing for such an important issue. I believe that Mr Chapman’s amendment 38 does that and I encourage members to support it.

The Presiding Officer

I call Peter Chapman to wind up on the group.

Peter Chapman

I will be very brief. I think that there is a lot of common sense in the amendment and I ask the Parliament to support it.

Amendment 38 agreed to.

After section 11

The Presiding Officer

We move on to group 5. Amendment 7, in the name of Andy Wightman, is grouped with amendments 7A to 7E and 24.

Andy Wightman (Lothian) (Green)

I place on record the fact that the purpose of amendment 7 is to place on ministers a duty to supply and publish information about certain characteristics including the ownership of forests that are not held in the public sector. We have very little information on that, and the information that we have, which the cabinet secretary revealed to me in answers to written questions, is very out of date. If we are to have forest policy that is designed, for example, to encourage farmers and estate owners to plant trees, we need better sight of the range of owners of forests in Scotland and how that changes over time in order to be able to develop policy that is targeted at getting the kind of forest expansion that we want.

I also place on record and want to clarify something in relation to a letter that was written by the cabinet secretary to members and distributed at half past 8 last night. The cabinet secretary enclosed a letter from the accountable officer at Registers of Scotland and said:

“This further information about costs is concerning, given that funding would likely need to be found from within forestry budgets.”

I remind members that subsection (1) of amendment 7 says:

“The Scottish Ministers must gather and publish in such manner as they consider appropriate information on forest holdings in Scotland that do not fall within forested land as defined in section 10.”

The duty is to gather and publish information

“in such manner as they consider appropriate”.

The letter that Mr Ewing sent from Janet Egdell, the operations director and accountable officer at Registers of Scotland, stated:

“Information from Rural Payments colleagues indicate that there are around 17,500 holdings in Scotland with more than 5 hectares of woodland. We estimate that it would cost Registers of Scotland around £600,000 to search for the named owner for each of these holdings.”

I clarify that there is nothing in my amendment 7 that requires Registers of Scotland, the Scottish ministers or anybody else to search for who owns Scotland’s forests. The kind of information that my amendment envisages is information on the gender of owners, on size classes and on the characteristics of the owners—whether they are charities or in local government, whether they are investors, whether they live here, whether they are farmers, whether they are owner occupiers or whether they are tenants. Collecting that kind of data is common right across Europe. Mr Ewing’s intervention last night was highly regrettable.

I turn to the cabinet secretary’s amendments. Amendment 7A would replace the word “extent” with the word “area”. I am perfectly happy with that. Amendment 7B would delete a reference to the information to be gathered as being “natural characteristics” of forests. I am very happy to support amendment 7B. That information is gathered in other places, not least in the national forest inventory.

Amendment 7C, in the name of Fergus Ewing, would leave out the word “ownership” and replace it with “proprietorship”. Until half past 8 last night, I was happy to support amendment 7C. However, in the light of the letter last night that clearly implies that his understanding is that we need to spend £600,000 to find out from Registers of Scotland who owns Scotland’s forests—a proposition with which I do not agree, but that is clearly his understanding—I would like the cabinet secretary to confirm that he is in no way suggesting that replacing “ownership” with “proprietorship” is tied to his understanding of the duty that is placed on ministers.

Amendment 7D would leave out “management”. Again, I am content with that, as that information is gathered in other places.

Fergus Ewing’s amendment 7E would delete the whole of subsection (5) of my amendment 7, which states:

“Information under this section must be—

(a) first published no later than 3 years after the day of Royal Assent,

(b) subsequently published no later than 5 years after the date of the previous such publication.”

Amendment 7E would place no timescale whatsoever on ministers to ever publish any kind of information, limited or not. Therefore, I urge members to vote against amendment 7E.

Amendment 24, in my name, is a consequential technical amendment that relates to secondary legislative provisions.

I repeat that subsection (1) of amendment 7 would require ministers to

“gather and publish”

information

“in such manner as they consider appropriate”.

The cabinet secretary is well aware of that, as I have been in correspondence with his office for a number of days on the matter. Ministers either of this Administration or of any future Administration might well sit down and consider their duties under subsection (1), and they might consider that the manner that they deem appropriate is no more than a pie chart.

I draw members’ attention to the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing on Scottish forestry of 21 November 2016. Under figure 8, there is a pie chart that is titled “Breakdown of Scottish woodland by ownership”. It shows that 33 per cent of Scotland’s woodland is managed by the Forestry Commission and owned by the Scottish ministers and that 67 per cent is owned by others. That information could be gathered and published easily because it already is, and it would certainly fall within the manner that a minister who did not want to publish very much could consider appropriate. Therefore, it wholly fulfils those duties. If any minister were to publish information in the form of one pie chart, I would be very disappointed but I could not argue that that was not fulfilling the duties that would be placed on ministers under subsection (1) of amendment 7.

I cannot understand why the Government is so resistant to providing better data and information on how Scotland’s forests are owned or why ministers would seek the support of a public official to misrepresent the purposes of amendment 7 and imply that it places on them an obligation to pay up to £600,000 for that information. Because I know that the minister calls Scottish Land & Estates in support whenever he can, I am pleased to see that it supports amendment 7. Confor does not.

I move amendment 7.

Fergus Ewing

I understand the desire to improve availability of information on ownership of forested holdings, and transparency of land ownership. In 2014, we asked the keeper of the registers of Scotland to complete the land register by 2024 and we committed to registration of all public land by 2019. We are introducing plans to establish a register of controlling interests.

Accordingly, I have lodged amendments to amendment 7, seeking to work with Mr Wightman to find a deliverable outcome and to avoid disproportionate cost. Sadly, we have not been able to agree. I ask members to vote against amendment 7, even if it is amended. That said, I am keen to see what might be achieved on an incremental basis from information that we hold, primarily in the national forest inventory and the land register, without a statutory provision. I will set out proposals for how we might proceed, should amendment 7 be defeated.

Andy Wightman

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fergus Ewing

I would like to make progress, but I will be happy to give way later, if Andy Wightman still wishes to intervene.

Amendments 7A to 7D would change the information that is to be published to information concerning the area and proprietorship of forest holdings by replacing terms that are ambiguous. They are technical amendments that will bring the terminology into line with terms that are already used in information collection—changes with which, I understand, Mr Wightman is content.

Amendment 7E would remove subsection (5) of the proposed new section, which would require that the information be published within three years of royal assent. With respect, I suggest that subsection (5) will not accomplish what Andy Wightman intends. I make clear for the record that I do not object to the intention behind subsection (5), but I am concerned about its potential impact. If Scottish ministers were to be required to gather all the information that would be required for publication within just three years of royal assent, it is likely that the resource requirements—the costs—of so doing would substantially inhibit early publication of information that might otherwise be available for publishing. It seems to us that if technical or data protection issues, for example, were encountered within that three-year period, subsection (5) would require us to overcome them, no matter what resource or cost was required. Make no mistake, Presiding Officer—there would be substantial costs involved.

In seeking a workable outcome, I instructed my officials to examine potential sources for the information that would be required by amendment 7, including integrated administration and control system data that had been collected for rural payments purposes. The advice is very clear: the IACS data is not intended to be, nor can it serve as, a source of land-ownership information. Taking that approach would be a substantial change to how information is collected and held.

The only reliable source of information on land ownership in Scotland is the land register and register of sasines, which are held by Registers of Scotland. The IACS data did, however, reveal that there are about 17,500 pieces of land in Scotland containing more than 5 hectares of forested land. On that basis, Registers of Scotland was commissioned to provide an estimate of the costs of identifying ownership of those 17,500 pieces of land.

I draw members’ attention to the letter that I received from the operational director and accountable officer at Registers of Scotland, which sets out that to do that would cost about £600,000. The letter went on to state that

“In addition to this, there will be many more holdings with areas of woodland less than 5 hectares and other forestry holdings that are not held within the rural payments database.”

She adds:

“If these were to be included, the total costs to Registers of Scotland of providing this information might be very much more.”

Those matters were not canvassed earlier in consideration of the bill and were not considered in the financial memorandum. They have not been budgeted for and are entirely uncosted. I am therefore very concerned that agreement to amendment 7 would necessitate diversion of precious finite resources, which would have to come from forestry budgets. Those resources are for spending on maintaining forestry, creating more woodland and planting more trees. My amendments—amendment 7E in particular—are designed to ameliorate that, but I am not content that the risk would be reduced sufficiently.

As I said, I am sympathetic to the intention behind amendment 7 and to the overall ambition of increasing the amount of information that is available about Scotland’s forests. Therefore, I will make undertakings to members if amendment 7 is not agreed to.

First, I would be happy to enter into dialogue with members from all sides to develop a shared approach to the publishing of information about forest holdings. In particular, I am keen to investigate what information may be published in advance of the three-year timescale to which amendment 7 refers.

Secondly, I would like to examine whether an incremental approach to publication of information can be taken. That would happen with the intention of publishing information at the earliest possible time, with more and better information being published subsequently. It should also be considered what information additional to that which is specified in amendment 7 could be included.

I make those commitments today and am happy to undertake to inform Parliament regularly of progress. I understand the appetite to know more about forested land and am keen that we do so in a balanced and proportionate way that dovetails with other work that is under way in that regard.

I hope that the proposals that I have outlined are accepted in the good faith in which they are intended and that, if members are still minded to support amendment 7, they will support amendments 7A to 7D, and especially amendment 7E for the reasons that I have set out. However, my strong preference remains that amendment 7 not be agreed to, in view of its uncosted nature and the risk of imperilling other expenditure on our important forestry policies that are to be developed in due course. I respectfully ask members not to support amendment 7, even if amended.

I move amendment 7A.

Peter Chapman

I will be brief.

We support all the amendments in the group, apart from amendment 7E.

We agree with amendment 7 on the basis that it would make it easier for the public to access information about forested land. An increase in information about forestry ownership and management would be useful for many companies that are involved in the industry and would add transparency for the public. However, I state for the record that implementing the new duty would, as Andy Wightman rightly said, not result in undue costs for forestry owners, managers or the Government.

We also support amendment 24, which will facilitate open and transparent data on proprietorship of forest holdings.

Amendments 7A to 7D, in the name of the cabinet secretary, are all technical amendments that we support. They would make minor changes to Andy Wightman’s amendment 7 and make it better aligned with the bill’s aims.

We will not support the cabinet secretary’s amendment 7E, which seeks to remove subsection (5) from amendment 7. It would remove the deadline for the duty to publish the information that there would be a duty to gather, and it would remove the requirement to publish updates every five years. Subsection (1) of the proposed new section would allow plenty of latitude to publish more modest information if that is required, in particular because of data protection concerns, for example.

Claudia Beamish

I speak in support of Andy Wightman’s amendment 7, on a “Duty to publish information on forestry”. It is really important for public transparency and accountability, and in relation to the points that my colleague Peter Chapman raised.

We will listen very carefully to what Andy Wightman says in summing up before we make a decision on amendment 7C, on replacing “ownership” with “proprietorship”.

We will oppose amendment 7E, because removing subsection (5) from the proposed new section would mean that no timescales would apply, which would not be appropriate.

I am concerned that the cabinet secretary wrote to members about the costs of obtaining information at such a late stage—last night, after 5 o’clock. I am not convinced by his letter that amendment 7E reflects Andy Wightman’s intention in amendment 7 to gather information.

Mike Rumbles

We support Andy Wightman’s amendment 7 and the technical amendments to it. I am concerned about amendment 7E, in the name of the minister. To be fair to the minister, I say that he has made it clear that he does not support amendment 7, which I understand. However, I do not understand why the only substantial amendment that he has lodged to amendment 7 would remove the subsection that requires a timescale. The minister could have proposed a different timescale, but he did not. If his amendment 7E is agreed to, the timescale would be removed altogether.

This stage 3 debate was delayed as a result of the adverse weather that we had a week and a half ago. As other members have said, we received letters as late as last night throwing doubt on the costs of publishing forestry information. That is a scandal. It is a disgrace that members are being pressured like this when we have not had the time to go through all the additional information that we have received. I deprecate it as bad practice; the minister should not have done it. Furthermore, it is most inappropriate to bring a public official into the debate at this stage.

I do not like what has been going on with the minister, given some of the letters that have been sent to us across the piece. As I have said, this is a delayed stage 3 debate and we have not had a proper look at the information. The minister is becoming increasingly desperate to try to change people’s minds at the last minute with what I would call disinformation. When we are deciding on a stage 3 debate, it is really important that we get right the letter of the law. The minister, by sending the letter last night, has achieved the opposite of what he had intended.

The Presiding Officer

I call Andy Wightman to wind up.

Andy Wightman

The cabinet secretary still appears to be labouring under a misunderstanding about the intention of amendment 7. I understand that what is said in Parliament during the passage of legislation matters and can be taken into account by the courts when interpreting what the legislation means. I could not have been clearer in my remarks that amendment 7 does not place a duty on ministers, or anybody else, to spend £600,000, or any sum of money, in order to gather information from the Registers of Scotland. That information is already in the public domain—it may cost a fortune to obtain it, but that is an argument for another day.

As I have said, information such as I seek publication of is routinely published across Europe. It would give us a better understanding of the age profile of forest owners and their gender. I understand that gender has been an important issue in recent debates on agriculture and farm occupation, given the need to encourage more women into agriculture. We also need to encourage more women into forestry, so having an idea of the gender breakdown of forest owners is important. There are countries in Europe, including Hungary and Bulgaria—my head is too full of other matters to give a full list—that have very high levels of women engaged in the ownership of forest holdings.

Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)

What gender would be attributed to a company that has ownership?

Andy Wightman

Another category of information that could be collected is the characteristics of the legal owner—whether it is a partnership, a limited liability partnership, a company limited by guarantee, a Scottish limited partnership or a Scottish charitable incorporated organisation. All legal persons would not be asked the question, and they would not be required to deliver an answer, on the gender of a Scottish charitable incorporated organisation. [Interruption.]

I ask members to listen carefully to what I have to say about amendment 7C. I was minded to support amendment 7C, which would change the word “ownership” to “proprietorship”. However, I specifically asked the cabinet secretary to address the significance of such a change, in his mind, and I did not hear an answer. “Proprietorship” is far more closely associated with the actual identity of the owner of land, and that is not the intention of amendment 7, as I said. I am not interested in the identity of who owns forest land. My amendment is about gathering information on the broad characteristics of forest land ownership.

Therefore, having failed to hear any clarification from the cabinet secretary, and having heard that he continues to believe that amendment 7 would require the gathering of detailed information about ownership at an incredibly high cost, I will vote against amendment 7C. I want the word “ownership” to remain in amendment 7.

I repeat that subsection (1) of the new section that amendment 7 would insert in the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill would place a duty on the Scottish ministers to

“gather and publish in such manner as they consider appropriate information on forest holdings”.

I really do not understand how words that are specifically designed to frame a duty in the widest possible terms, to give ministers the widest possible latitude as to the manner in which they choose to gather and publish information, should be so problematic. I press amendment 7.

Fergus Ewing

This debate has not been without interest and I want to reply to some of the points that have been made.

First, Mr Wightman says that he is not interested in information about ownership. That is a surprise to me, because his amendment 7 would insert a new section, entitled “Duty to publish information on forestry”, subsection (2) of which says:

“The information to be gathered must include in particular information on the ... Ownership”

of forest holdings. I am generally perplexed as to how Mr Wightman reconciles his statement that he is not interested in the ownership of land with the fact that in his amendment he calls on the Scottish Government to publish information about ownership.

Andy Wightman

May I help, minister?

Fergus Ewing

Please try.

Andy Wightman

I made clear in my opening remarks and again a moment ago that nothing in amendment 7 is designed to place a duty on ministers to publish detailed information about the identity of owners. That is not the purpose of the amendment. As I said, SPICe published information on the ownership of Scottish woodland in figure 8 in its briefing, “Scottish Forestry”, to which I referred earlier. Figure 8, which is entitled “Breakdown of Scottish woodland by ownership”, is a pie chart. It is very straightforward, and I think that we could do with a bit more information; the 67 per cent of woodland that is owned by “Other” could be broken down a little further. That is information on ownership, and if a minister in this Administration wishes to fulfil the duty to gather and publish information in such a manner as he considers appropriate by producing a pie chart, I will be perfectly content that that meets the spirit and intent of the legislation.

Fergus Ewing

None of that really answers my question about why, if the member is not interested in ownership, amendment 7 would require ministers to publish information about ownership.

I also point out that subsection (4) of the new section that amendment 7 would insert says:

“Regulations ... may in particular make provision about whether the information is to be in the form of a statistically representative sample of, or comprehensive information on, all such forest holdings.”

Anyone with a passing familiarity with statistics knows that to provide a representative sample, one must first establish the identity of the whole population.

That is why I sought expert advice, and that advice comes from the keeper of the registers of Scotland. If this Parliament and the Opposition parties choose vote for the amendments, they will be creating law—a legal obligation—and we, as ministers, will obviously be required to respect and comply with that. The way in which that would be done in Scotland would be to invite the Registers of Scotland to identify any information about ownership that is required.

I will point out a few other pieces of information that I hope will persuade members that Mr Wightman’s arguments should not be accepted. He appears to argue that information about ownership of land is held within IACS data. That is not the case. It is not the purpose or the ambition of the IACS system to capture information about the legal owner of land. He appears to believe that the rural payments and inspections directorate would be able to provide information about ownership. That is not correct. The purpose of the RPID is to administer the rural payments system.

To get any information about ownership—and plainly the proposed new section specifically imparts on us an obligation to get information about ownership, although it does not go on to say precisely what information we should get, which is what we are trying to improve—we have to consult the keeper of the registers of Scotland. The keeper has identified that there are 17,500 holdings in excess of 5 hectares and a very large number under 5 hectares. Plainly, the keeper would have to get information about all those holdings, apparently within a period of three years. In her letter, the keeper’s accountable officer states that the impact of the additional work that that would require could detract from other priorities, such as completing the land register and implementing the new register of controlling interests.

Finally, references have been made to the fact that the information from the keeper has been presented late. That is because these matters were not canvassed at stages 1 and 2, when, frankly, they should have been canvassed in detail, with costings. Those costings are not available to Parliament.

If Opposition members, as they are quite entitled to do, vote for the amendments today, they will be responsible—

John Finnie

Will the member give way?

Fergus Ewing

I am just concluding. Those members will be responsible for whatever that uncosted amount will be, and for whatever diversion there may be of public servants from other essential work that they must carry out.

Amendment 7A agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

I call amendments 7B, 7C, 7D and 7E, all in the name of the cabinet secretary and all previously debated. I invite the cabinet secretary to move—[Interruption.] No, no, I am just going to ask the cabinet secretary to move the amendments en bloc, but we will vote on them individually.

Amendments 7B to 7E moved—[Fergus Ewing].

The Presiding Officer

Thank you very much to all the experts in the chamber. [Laughter.]

Amendment 7B agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 7C be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 90, Against 34, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 7C agreed to.

Amendment 7D agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 7E be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 60, Against 64, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 7E disagreed to.

The Presiding Officer

I invite Andy Wightman to press or withdraw amendment 7.

Andy Wightman

I press amendment 7.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 7, as amended, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 64, Against 60, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 16—Compulsory purchase of land

The Presiding Officer

We move to group 6. Amendment 1, in the name of Edward Mountain, is grouped with amendment 8.

Edward Mountain (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

I declare an interest as a member of a farming partnership.

I will speak to amendment 1, in my name, and amendment 8, in the name of the cabinet secretary. Amendment 1 seeks to remove from section 16 the provision on the compulsory acquisition of land for sustainable development. The Forestry Act 1967 contains the provision on compulsory purchase of land for forestry, which the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee was told in evidence had never been used. It was suggested that its use might have been threatened on one occasion, but no details of that were ever given.

In its stage 1 report, the majority of the REC Committee supported the compulsory purchase powers for forestry but did not support those for sustainable development, yet the cabinet secretary still seeks to enhance the unused compulsory purchase powers so that they extend beyond forestry to sustainable development. One must ask about the reasonableness of the proposal. Is it reasonable to ask for more powers to supplement the existing unused powers? I propose that it is not.

The REC Committee was told of a hypothetical scenario in which compulsory purchase powers might be needed for sustainable development. I could not follow the example that was given.

I am sure that the cabinet secretary knows that there are nine different ways in which compulsory purchase powers can be used. They can be used under sections 189 and 190 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and under the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990, the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. Given that all those options exist, we do not believe that the cabinet secretary has proven the need for additional compulsory purchase powers that widen the scope of the powers in the original 1967 act.

Therefore, as a group, although we accept that there might remotely be a need for compulsory purchase powers for forestry, we see no need to widen the scope of the existing powers and provide supplementary compulsory purchase powers for sustainable development. I remind members that the 1967 act has been in force for 51 years, which gives a good idea of whether the powers are needed.

We will support amendment 8 in the name of the cabinet secretary.

I move amendment 1.

Fergus Ewing

Amendment 8 is a technical amendment lodged following helpful discussions with Mr Rumbles about his amendments 1 to 3 at stage 2. I supported amendment 1 at stage 2 and agreed to support amendments 2 and 3 on the understanding that they were consequential.

In doing so, I indicated that I wished to examine the effect of amendments 2 and 3 before stage 3 to understand whether they would have any unintended consequences. That scrutiny revealed that amendment 3 was not consequential to amendment 1. I have discussed that and my rationale for seeking to remove the provision from the bill with Mr Rumbles, and I hope that he will be able to support amendment 8 accordingly.

My amendment has no effect on the policy outcome sought and achieved by Mr Rumbles’s amendments 1 and 2 at stage 2. I fully support the objectives of those amendments. They amended the bill to require the forestry strategy to include objectives, priorities and policies with respect to the acquisition and disposal of land and to require Scottish ministers to have regard to the strategy when disposing of forested land. Those are helpful and constructive additions to the bill.

Moreover, a further safeguard has now been built into the bill through Mr Finnie’s amendments at stage 2, which restrict the application of income from disposals of land, including the national forest estate, solely for purposes within the functions of the bill. That ensures that there are appropriate checks and balances that I trust are sufficient to have similar effect to that which Mr Rumbles was seeking to achieve.

On amendment 1, I recognise that the power has attracted considerable interest, and I have listened carefully to the concerns that some continue to hold. I believe that they are based on a misunderstanding of the legal effect of the power. I hope to allay those concerns today by setting the power in context and clarifying its scope.

There is nothing unusual in having compulsory purchase powers. They are a necessary and common part of the statutory landscape and there are more than 20 acts that include such powers in Scotland. Indeed, some of those—ranging from the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 and the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990—were passed by the Conservatives when in Government in a different era, under a leader who I do not recall as being a noted land reform campaigner. They broadly still have effect today.

In some acts, such as the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 and the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, which were passed by the previous Labour-Liberal Democrat Administrations, the inclusion of such powers did not seem controversial. Nor indeed was their inclusion controversial in acts such as the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, which was introduced by an SNP Government.

Powers of compulsory purchase are rarely used, and Mr Mountain is correct in that respect. They are a power of last resort, but that is not an argument to support their removal from the bill. They are a useful power to have, and the existence of those powers informs and influences transactions, enabling negotiations with private landowners to reach a satisfactory and affordable conclusion. Indeed, my clear recollection is that that argument may have held sway with some members of the REC Committee when it considered the matter before.

I am concerned that there is a misunderstanding about the extent of the power and that some believe it to be an unfettered power for ministers to buy property that they simply want to manage. If that were the case, I would agree that it would be a matter of concern. However, it is not the case. I am happy to provide assurances on the scope of the power.

The section 16(1)(b) power—to acquire land compulsorily for the purposes of furthering sustainable development—does not give ministers powers to compulsorily purchase land where there is no connection to land already managed under the duty at section 13. Ministers will be able to use the power to purchase land only when that land is required by ministers to exercise an existing land management function under the bill. To put it another way, ministers will be able to use it only to purchase land that is required to help them to manage land that they are already managing.

The power is provided to support the new duties placed on ministers by section 13 to manage non-forested land for the purposes of furthering the achievement of sustainable development. Around one third of the national forest estate—216,000 hectares of land—is non-forested land that will be managed under the section 13 duty. Mr Mountain’s amendment 1 would mean that ministers would not have a specific power of CPO to support management of that substantial land holding. The situation of a ransom strip might arise in relation to that land, as it could for forested land. There may be issues with access to a site or management of a particular ecosystem for environmental considerations or issues with unlocking a piece of land’s economic potential.

It is not at all clear that current powers would cater for all the situations that the new agency may face, such as if important mineral deposits were found on ministers’ land. This power would be clear in its scope. It is purely for the purpose of facilitating sustainable development on land that is already managed by ministers and it would be proportionate in its application due to the existing very strict tests that must be met when exercising any CPO powers.

Scottish ministers could be placed at a significant disadvantage in negotiating a land transaction for public good with a private landowner if the CPO power is not there as a backstop. From the manner in which he spoke to his amendment, I am sure that that is not Mr Mountain’s intention. That position seems inconsistent and anomalous when set against the context of there being general support for ministers to have a CPO power to manage land under section 9. That land includes the two thirds of the national forest estate that is forested.

There is a robust procedure for the exercise of the power of compulsory purchase, which is set out in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947. The bill provides for use of that existing, established procedure. The exercise of the power requires public notice of the intent to purchase and notices to be given to owners, lessees and occupiers. There is the opportunity for objections to be made. A local inquiry can be held if necessary, which will weigh the public benefit of the order against the private interests of those with an interest in the land, and ultimately a challenge can be made through the Court of Session. There is a robust process that no acquiring authority, including Scottish ministers, embarks on lightly in deploying the use of any compulsory purchase power, and there would be no exception in this case.

At stage 2, colleagues from the Greens and the Labour Party were pleased to vote for compulsory purchase powers; I await with interest their contributions this afternoon.

I ask Mr Mountain not to press amendment 1 and I ask members not to support it if it is pressed.

Mike Rumbles

I rise in support of Edward Mountain’s amendment 1 to remove the mention of section 13 from section 16, on the compulsory purchase of land.

So that members know exactly what is going on here, I will tell them that we took a lot of evidence on this at stage 1 and it was quite clear that in transferring powers from the 1967 act into this bill, we are transferring compulsory purchase powers that the Government already has.

Because we are getting into sustainable development, the proposal is to expand the compulsory purchase powers of ministers again. When we took evidence about that, we heard that compulsory purchase power in the 1967 act has never been used in the half a century since it was passed.

Bruce Crawford (Stirling) (SNP)

So why are you opposing it?

Mike Rumbles

I have been asked why I oppose the Government proposal. I will tell members why—it is because there is a theme to what ministers do. From my experience of previous ministers in the coalition Government, I know that ministers of any party—not specifically the SNP—want to gather in ministerial power and take power away from Parliament. It is happening again here. It will happen again in tomorrow’s stage 3 debate. [Interruption.] Whether members like this or not—

Bruce Crawford

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles

Absolutely.

Bruce Crawford

I have been listening to the debate very carefully and I have looked at page 4 of the bill. It is about the minister taking a power for the

“Management of land to further sustainable development”.

For the life of me, I cannot understand where the harm is in the minister taking a power “to further sustainable development”. Can the member please explain to me where the harm is in that? I am, frankly, bamboozled by the approach that is being taken in amendment 1.

Mike Rumbles

I am happy to explain to the member, because he obviously has difficulty in following this. [Interruption.] Well, he does, does he not? That is what he has just said. [Interruption.] He asked the question and I am trying to answer the question—if members will let me.

The proposal is to expand the power of ministers. When I discussed the matter with the ministers’ team and challenged them, asking what use could be made of the power, the only response was, “Well, we want to future proof this.”

Bruce Crawford

The question that I asked Mike Rumbles quite clearly was about what harm is caused by giving the power to the minister in the circumstances outlined, particularly as it would give him the power “to further sustainable development”. Can the member please tell me what harm there is in that?

Mike Rumbles

I am a parliamentarian, as is Bruce Crawford, and it is Parliament’s duty to do the sort of thing that I am doing, because power must be given to ministers only sparingly. When Parliament gives power to ministers, we must be very careful about what we are allowing ministers to do. The fact is that the power that was given in the 1967 act has not been used in half a century. I say to Mr Crawford that the question, surely, is why the minister wants the power. That is the question that I have been asking. Why does the minister want the power? To that question there has been no answer.

I am not even sure that transferring the power from the 1967 act is a responsible thing to do. In a spirit of compromise, I am happy to allow that power to be transferred, but I am not happy to have the power increased. We are in a stage 3 debate and it is very important that the Parliament realises what the minister is trying to do here, because it is going to be reflected in the stage 3 debate that we will have tomorrow. We are discussing the power in section 13 of this bill, but section 13 of the bill that we will discuss in tomorrow’s stage 3 debate is even more important. That is why I am getting exercised about the issue. The Parliament should not be giving ministers powers that they do not know what to do with. I therefore support Edward Mountain’s amendment 1.

Peter Chapman

I speak in support of my colleague Edward Mountain’s amendment 1, and I will be brief. Compulsory purchase for sustainable development is a red line as far as the Conservative group is concerned. We have said all along that the compulsory purchase powers in the existing legislation will remain and will be rolled over into this new bill, so compulsory purchase powers will be there. However, as Mike Rumbles has said, those powers have never been used in 50 years. We are amazed that the cabinet secretary now thinks that he needs additional powers.

Further, as sustainable development has never been explained in a proper manner, in terms of what it actually means in practice, we would be opening the door to forced compulsory purchase for almost any situation that the cabinet secretary chose to support. To answer Bruce Crawford’s question: that is the danger.

Stewart Stevenson

Will the member take an intervention?

Peter Chapman

No.

It would be open to the cabinet secretary to use the power in any situation. That is totally unacceptable and it must be resisted at all costs.

Fergus Ewing

First, I am somewhat taken aback by the degree of controversy attaching to an issue that has not given concern to Parliaments here or at Westminster during every decade since the second world war. I have a list of the acts concerned in my hand; I will not go through them, but there are 24 of them. Under Labour Governments, Tory Governments and Scottish National Party Governments—I think that there was even a Liberal Government for a while—every Parliament has passed bills in which, if there was any conceivable need for the compulsory purchase power, it was granted. I personally cannot remember any controversy in the Scottish Parliament about previous legislation in which we sought to confer the power of compulsory purchase.

Secondly, the fact that the power has not been used does not mean that it is not required. That point is very simple. All of us who, in our previous professional lives, were involved in negotiating know that the power exists as a backstop to ensure that, where land is required for a new road or railway development, for example, there are powers to force the deal to a conclusion. That is why there are compulsory powers, and they cross all functions of Government and have never been controversial previously.

I turn to land reform, because we are talking about land reform. I am surprised that we have not heard from the Labour Party or the Greens in this debate, because it is specifically about providing the possibility of compulsory purchase powers when the land reform provisions of the bill come into play. I was pleased that I got the support of Rhoda Grant and John Finnie—members of the committee—on the issue at stage 2. At that time, I thought that it was a routine expectation that the Labour Party and the Scottish Green Party would support compulsory purchase powers for land reform.

Bruce Crawford

I am a bit surprised by the cabinet secretary’s direction. I have not heard from the Green Party on amendment 1. Is the cabinet secretary suggesting that the Greens will vote for it and not allow him the power to purchase land for sustainable development reasons? Is that really the situation that we are in?

Fergus Ewing

The Greens and I will be happy that I do not speak for their party. I am afraid that I do not know what is in their minds. However, I find it a bit odd that, like the case of the dog that did not bark in the night, we have the case of the land reform parties that have not spoken in the debate. There will be a lot of explaining to do should it emerge—I cannot imagine that this will happen—that parties that have supported land reform for decades have suddenly abandoned it to do a deal with the Conservatives.

Edward Mountain

I always bow to the cabinet secretary’s knowledge of compulsory purchase. I suggested that there were such powers in nine acts. When he started his speech, he said that there were 20 and, when he concluded, there were 24. They seem to be multiplying. Therefore, I cannot see the need for legislation to cover compulsory purchase for sustainable development. We still have not been given any examples of why the power is needed. I reiterate to the Parliament that it is abundantly clear that the Conservatives have understood the need for compulsory purchase as a backstop for forestry. However, we will never accept a power grab for more powers the need for which we do not understand.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)

Against

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 63, Against 61, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Section 17—Power to dispose of land

Amendment 8 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Section 22—Key terms in Part 4

The Presiding Officer

Amendment 9, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 13 to 21, 25, 27 and 28.

Fergus Ewing

The amendments in the group seek to improve our ability to respond when investigating illegal felling. They reflect the input of conservancy staff and will provide them with a stronger statutory underpinning to take action more effectively to tackle potential illegal felling.

Edward Mountain

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I do not want to stop the cabinet secretary, but I am struggling to hear him. I would like to hear what is being said, if possible.

The Presiding Officer

That is a very good point, Mr Mountain. I ask members to keep the noise down when they are leaving the chamber.

Fergus Ewing

The amendments, which complement existing powers of entry by allowing a halt to be imposed on the felling operation by way of a temporary stop notice, will enable staff to safely gain access to the site that is under investigation. Notices will require felling to stop and are underpinned by an offence that is in line with other offences in the bill. Safeguards are built into the amendments. For example, notices can last no longer than 28 days and, where it transpires that felling was, in fact, permitted, any losses may be compensated.

Illegal felling is a particular concern in ancient and semi-natural woodlands, which means that it disproportionately affects those with high biodiversity value or those that have particular value to local communities. Illegal felling is a deforestation and environmental impact issue. However, the use of the powers of entry is an issue of safety—the safety of staff. The notices are important in order to maximise our chances of addressing the former without compromising the latter. They are proportionate and necessary to enable us to protect woodlands but also, crucially, staff. I urge members to support them.

I move amendment 9.

Graeme Dey

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the amendments, which relate to the introduction of temporary stop notices. I urge members to back these amendments today because, from a frankly appalling local experience, I know that there is an absolute need for them.

A few short weeks ago, Monikie, in my constituency, was the site of an act of what can be described only as environmental vandalism, when a developer all but destroyed an amenity woodland as Angus Council stood by, claiming that it had no locus. Not only were the trees felled on an unacceptable scale, but a variety of biodiversity was destroyed—biodiversity that had been supported by public money. Local residents had raised concerns over the developers felling a small number of Scots pine and willow trees but, as the Forestry Commission Scotland sought to identify the owner of the site and instruct them to desist, in the absence of a felling licence, the developer took a digger into the woodland and decimated it, in spite of a request from our local wildlife crime officer to stop.

I commend the efforts of the Forestry Commission, Scottish Natural Heritage and Police Scotland on the issue, and welcome the fact that an environmental impact assessment enforcement notice has now been served on the owner. However, it would have been much better if we had been able to prevent what happened rather than having to seek to force the perpetrator to restore the woodland, in so far as that can be done.

As things stand, Forestry Commission staff can alert operators that they may be acting illegally and that there is an intention to access the site, but those warnings can be ignored or can perhaps even spur the operator on to complete felling before it is stopped. The amendments will strengthen the hand of the Forestry Commission and I urge the Parliament to support them. We cannot turn back the clock in Monikie, but we can ensure that regulatory staff are in a stronger position to prevent something similar from happening elsewhere in the future.

I urge Parliament to support the amendments.

Edward Mountain

One of the key issues with temporary stop notices, which are dealt with by this group of amendments, is a test of reasonableness. I say at the outset that the amendments stumble at that hurdle, for the simple reason that they were submitted only shortly before the Government deadline for amendments. As a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee—I stress that I speak as a member, not as the convener—I am extremely disappointed that the cabinet secretary considers that it is in any way appropriate to lodge amendments that cannot have any proper parliamentary or committee scrutiny. To me, that demonstrates a lack of respect and a complete lack of thought by the Government bill team.

In the situation in which we find ourselves, in which there has been no scrutiny of the amendments or explanation of the requirement for them, I have tried to examine the rationale for their introduction. The only situation in which a temporary stop notice would apply, as explained in amendment 13, is one in which

“the felling is not carried out in accordance with a felling permission, a felling direction, a restocking direction, a registered notice to comply, a remedial notice, or a registered remedial notice”.

Owners who act in such a way would be acting unreasonably. If an owner or contractor is willing to go against what has been agreed, even when it has been pointed out to them, that is wrong. I have no way of assessing how often that has happened in Scotland in the recent past; that is why it would have been good to discuss the matter in the committee. Therefore, we are in a quandary. We have to make a decision to support or oppose the amendments based on a lack of detail. In fact, in my 15 years of experience of being a land manager, I would say that I have never seen such a situation arise. However, perhaps that is because I am reasonable.

Having said that, I could conceive of situations—such as the one that Mr Dey pointed out—in which some people might be unreasonable. As the notices have a time limit and there is provision for compensation, we are prepared to accept this late and unscrutinised group of amendments.

Fergus Ewing

I am pleased that the measures have found support and that we are agreeing to implement them, not least because they emanate from a staff member in one of the conservancies, who identified the need for temporary stop notices for the sake of staff safety and good silvicultural practice. I commend the amendments to members.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

After section 28

The Presiding Officer

Amendment 10, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 11, 12 and 22.

Fergus Ewing

The bill provides for felling permissions to be granted with or without conditions. Those conditions may be varied or revoked. For example, conditions relating to when someone may fell can be adjusted if necessary after permission has been granted.

The amendments seek to introduce some flexibility, in limited circumstances, in felling permissions, which is consistent with our aim to create a modern and adaptive regime to support a modern and adaptable sector. I give the assurance that we will be reasonable and proportionate in the exercise of these powers, but to offer further reassurance I will set out the safeguards that are built into the amendments. Variation will be possible in two circumstances: first, with the agreement of the permission holder or possibly even at their request; and secondly, where we believe that, in order to prevent or minimise harm to the environment or any living thing, felling should stop immediately or not begin.

Suspension of a felling permission will also be possible in two distinct circumstances: either where compliance with the permission is in question and in order to investigate any harm to the environment or any living thing felling must stop immediately or not begin; or where it is necessary to suspend felling specifically in order to prevent or minimise such a harm. Revocation will be possible only where the risk to the environment or any living thing is such that felling must stop immediately or not begin and there is no other solution. The limited circumstances in which those powers can be used will protect permission holders and guarantee that the powers are used proportionately. All those decisions will be open to appeal.

I move amendment 10.

Edward Mountain

These amendments, too, were published very late in the day and have received no scrutiny by Parliament or indeed the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, of which I am a member. The amendments stumble on the first hurdle of reasonableness, and I have no option but to criticise the Government and the cabinet secretary for allowing that to happen. Good legislation is that which has been through the full process of scrutiny, and these amendments have not been through that process.

My concern is that the timber grower who has entered into a legal agreement with the regulatory body will be faced with that body having the right to withdraw unilaterally from that agreement for as long as they want—potentially indefinitely—without agreeing to review or compensate. Those who know the industry realise that much work—for example improvements to roads, loading areas and stacking areas—often goes on before the actual felling takes place. All such work incurs costs, which, should the process of suspension or revocation be allowed to proceed, will remain uncompensated.

According to the bill, variation, revocation and suspension can be implemented if there is

“harm to the environment or to any living thing”.

What is the definition of harm “to any living thing”? It makes me wonder whether members of the Government bill team have ever seen a 20 tonne forwarder at work in a forest. I would go further. Have they ever seen a tree being felled? Either operation will result in harm to a living thing, including the tree, which is one of the definitions that the cabinet secretary used at the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. The definition is so wide that any felling could be used as a trigger to launch a variation, revocation or suspension.

For those reasons, we cannot support the amendments in this group. What a pity it is that the cabinet secretary did not bring them forward at the outset, so that a solution to the problems that I have identified here could have been found earlier, in which case we might have been able to support them.

Fergus Ewing

I make the following points on the proportionate use of powers. The overarching aim of the powers is to allow the forestry regulator to act where there is an overriding conservation concern. Ministers would exercise the powers reasonably and proportionately—as they must, of course, exercise all powers. In addition, the threshold tests that are built into all three new sections should give comfort. For example, the power to revoke may be used only where there are no other options, which is right and proper.

Mr Mountain asked about the definition of “any living thing”. References to

“the environment or to any living thing”

frame powers that ministers must exercise reasonably and proportionately, which is a test that is used in other legislation. For example, in freshwater fisheries the overarching aim is conservation, so ministers would exercise the power with a view to protecting both species and the environment.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. As this the first division on the group, it will be a one-minute division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

Alexander Stewart (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

Presiding Officer, my terminal is not working. [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer

I hear the point that Mr Stewart makes, but perhaps if I read the result of the vote, the member could take a view. I note, for the record, that Mr Stewart tried to vote in the division and was not able to. [Interruption.] I am not rerunning the division.

The result of the division is: For 89, Against 32, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

If any member’s terminal is not working, I urge them simply to find another one that is.

Amendments 11 to 22 moved en bloc—[Fergus Ewing].

The Presiding Officer

Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 11 to 22?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, therefore, that amendments 11 to 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed? We are agreed. [Interruption.]

I am sorry—did we not agree to amendments 11 to 22? Did Conservative members say no? [Interruption.] Wait a second, please—we have to hear what members are saying, if I did not hear them correctly. I asked first of all whether the amendments could be moved en bloc. No one objected, so they were moved en bloc. The question was then that amendments 11 to 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

In that case, I will have to put a question on each of the amendments.

The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. Just to be clear, this vote is on amendment 11.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 87, Against 35, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 11 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

For

Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Denham, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fabiani, Linda (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Freeman, Jeane (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Glasgow) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow) (Lab)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lyle, Richard (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Ross, Gail (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, David (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wightman, Andy (Lothian) (Green)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)

Against

Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Ballantyne, Michelle (South Scotland) (Con)
Bowman, Bill (North East Scotland) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Cameron, Donald (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Chapman, Peter (North East Scotland) (Con)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Corry, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Davidson, Ruth (Edinburgh Central) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Harris, Alison (Central Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lindhurst, Gordon (Lothian) (Con)
Lockhart, Dean (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mason, Tom (North East Scotland) (Con)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Rumbles, Mike (North East Scotland) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Tomkins, Adam (Glasgow) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 89, Against 33, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Before section 42

Amendments 13 to 15 agreed to.

Section 52—Powers of entry and step-in power: application to court

Amendments 16 and 17 agreed to.

Section 53—Powers of entry and step-in power: offences

Amendment 18 agreed to.

Section 54—Powers of entry and step-in power: further provision

Amendments 19 and 20 agreed to.

Section 59—Time limit for prosecution

Amendment 21 agreed to.

Section 60—Appeals against decisions by Scottish Ministers

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Section 64A—Chief forester

The Presiding Officer

We turn to group 9. Amendment 23, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with the other amendments as shown in the list of groupings. I point out that if amendment 39A, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, is agreed to, I will be unable to call amendment 39B as it will have been pre-empted.

Fergus Ewing

The Scottish Government is focused on ensuring that there is a bright future for forestry in Scotland and that forestry’s substantial contribution to economic, environmental and social outcomes continues to be both recognised and celebrated. I know that many members share that ambition.

I know, too, that we all value the hard work and commitment of the staff in Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland, and that this group of amendments is largely motivated by a desire to promote their interests. I understand that and I have listened carefully to all that members have said to me.

In relation to amendments 23 and 26, on a chief forester, I start by reassuring Mr Rumbles that I have given careful consideration to his desire to provide for a chief forester role in the bill. However, there are legitimate concerns about the drafting of the provision. I am of the view that having a chief forester heading up Scottish forestry at the heart of Government will be an important protection for the interests of forestry and it is right to consolidate that view and role in legislation.

I will therefore move my amendments 23 and 26 in order to hear what members say, but I may not press them, depending on the views that are expressed. Indeed, I do not believe that we will achieve our ambitions for forestry, which I believe are shared by members across the chamber, without the skills and dedication of FCS and FES staff. Ensuring that they have a very bright future has been at the very core of my considerations.

Since last May, when I announced the Government’s planned administrative arrangements, I have continued to listen and respond positively to concerns. I have met staff around the country, I have taken account of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee’s stage 1 report and the discussion at stage 2, and I have put on record my agreement with the vast majority of the committee’s recommendations.

Therefore, I published the “Forestry in Scotland” statement last month in response to the helpful recommendation by the REC Committee that we should publish further details of our arrangements. The statement has provided considerable reassurance to a wide range of stakeholders and senior forestry figures. I want, in particular, to pay tribute to the Forestry Commission trade unions for the series of positive and constructive meetings that we have held since November 2016. They, like me, are keen to end the uncertainty for staff and to get on with agreeing the best deal possible for their members on transfer to the Scottish Government.

Having done everything that Parliament has asked us to do to date, I find myself somewhat perplexed to be considering a complex set of amendments that seek to put into law administrative arrangements that have not been fully specified, costed or worked up. I will address each of the amendments in turn.

Amendment 39 was lodged by Claudia Beamish, and I thank her for her continued interest and for the discussions that we have had since stage 2. I want to assure members that, during the consultation process in 2016, I considered fully whether a single body could take forward the functions of Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland, as set out in the bill’s policy memorandum at paragraph 64. I concluded that it would be inappropriate to merge the body that is being regulated, FES, with the body that does the regulating, FCS.

The argument against a single agency is that it would, in all likelihood, put at risk the public corporation status of the successor agency to FES, which allows for valuable financial flexibilities. That risk is addressed fully in the chief financial officer’s analysis, which has been made available to members. In short, the financial consequences could be—I use the word used by Simon Hodge, the chief executive of Forest Enterprise Scotland—disastrous. The likelihood of the loss of public corporation status might result in a vastly depleted budget for forestry, so we would not be able to meet our economic, environmental or other aims.

I know that some have been concerned that the analysis has appeared relatively late in the day. However, the proposal for a single agency was lodged only at stage 3. At stage 1, the REC Committee did not recommend such an approach, or even that the Government should explore any other options. I hope that the analysis that I have circulated to all MSPs has persuaded members not to support amendment 39. I intend to resist amendment 39 for this core reason: the people and businesses that work in forestry now oppose the single-agency proposal.

The Confederation of Forest Industries, which represents forestry and timber businesses all over the country, has been fairly clear throughout the bill process. It originally had concerns, but it supports the Government’s planned arrangements. The Forestry Commission trade unions have also confirmed that they do not support the single-agency proposal. Therefore, I appeal to members to oppose amendment 39 and to support the Government’s planned arrangements. I offer that further reassurance.

I turn to amendments 2, 2A and 40, which are on reporting. Should amendment 39 not be agreed to, even as modified by either amendments 39A or 39B, I want to give Parliament and members as much reassurance about the new arrangements as I can.