Chamber and committees

I echo much of what Kenny Gibson has suggested. We have dealt with four framework bills: the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill; the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill; the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill; and the Wildlife and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill. Although they could all be described as framework bills, they are all slightly different. For example, much of the detail that was not in the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill or the Wildlife and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill surrounds licensing schemes and guidance, which have either been difficult for the committee to scrutinise, or it does not have a place to do so.

Kenny Gibson mentioned bill design. It is difficult if all the important policies are not in the bill when it is first introduced to the committee. For example, important policies, such as the barring of snares and additional powers to the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals did not appear in the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill when it was first introduced. With regard to the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill, there was no proposal for a food commissioner, which was ultimately part of the bill at the end of the process. That is an important policy consideration.

In addition, it might be appropriate to say that there is no requirement for the Government to respond to a stage 1 report. For a framework bill, that response is often where the committee is able to tease out some of the policy objectives of a bill, which can assist with agreeing to its general principles, too. We have found ourselves not quite sure what all the desired outcomes for some bills would be. In one case, we did not have a Government response to our stage 1 report prior to the stage 1 debate and the Parliament voting on the general principles. Those are the areas of concern in relation to the points that you asked us to comment on, convener.

Certainly, when it came to scrutiny of the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill, I vividly remember the conversation that I had with the committee clerk about whether we should be scrutinising the bill at all at stage 1, because there was nothing to scrutinise. It was so framework that it just set out delegating powers to Scottish ministers, and more time absolutely needed to be spent on it at stage 2 or, indeed, a year on when looking at the secondary legislation. Maybe the Parliament needs to spend less time on initial bill scrutiny, with a shorter and lighter process, and spend more time on a more in-depth exercise when it comes to the secondary legislation. That is how the good food nation legislation will ultimately pan out. Also, with the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, the bulk of the policy delivery and the bulk of the funding allocation will happen a year on from when the Parliament passed the bill in the first place.

Maybe we need to rejig how Parliament keeps pace with the ever-increasing number of these so-called framework bills.

This is the moment at which we need to find more time, but we are now running out of time. I have Andy Rockall, Ian Wall and Graeme Prest still to come in, and then we need to move on to the last questions.

Who would like to kick off on that one?

Item 3 is consideration of a negative instrument. Members will be aware that Jackie Baillie lodged a motion to annul the instrument yesterday afternoon. That being the case, and to give us time to allow for that, I propose that we defer the item and consider it at our next meeting. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Yes, if it relates to our current schemes.

I will bring in Ariane Burgess for a question on the split between broadleaf trees and conifers.

You have probably pre-empted some of Emma Roddick’s next question, but I will bring her back in.

Is it Kirroughtree?

You mentioned community asset transfer. I feel that there has been some pullback by Forestry and Land Scotland and Scottish Woodlands and that there seem to be more barriers to community involvement. There have been issues with community asset transfer for small areas of forestry in Kirkcudbright and Dalbeattie and recent issues with the purchase of the Clatteringshaws visitor centre. Transfer seems to be increasingly difficult and it seems that Forestry and Land Scotland is acting more commercially than it did in the past.

There has been less investment in the 7stanes mountain biking centres, which have almost fallen off the tourist map after being such a jewel in the crown for Dumfries and Galloway. We have also seen less promotion of the dark skies, although Galloway had the first dark sky park in the United Kingdom. I feel that the eye has been taken off the ball regarding the importance of the public’s forests, if you like. Public sector forestry seems to have lost sight of the importance of access and of the activities that take place alongside forestry. Are my concerns misplaced?