Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Official Report 634KB pdf

---

Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Item 3 is the final evidence session on the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill. I welcome Claudia Beamish, the reporter on the bill for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. From the Scottish Government, I welcome Fergus Ewing, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Connectivity; Ginny Gardner, who is the head of forestry devolution; Carole Barker-Munro, who is the bill manager; Catherine Murdoch, who is the deputy bill manager; Barry McCaffrey, who is a solicitor; Jo O’Hara, who is the head of the Forestry Commission Scotland; and Simon Hodge, who is the chief executive of Forest Enterprise.

This is a welcome opportunity to give evidence on the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill. The forestry sector is hugely important to Scotland—to rural Scotland, in particular. It is the bedrock of many rural communities and supports a huge range of businesses: it is worth £1 billion a year and supports 25,000 jobs. The forestry sector is a very important part of our rural Scottish life.

The bill is the first primary legislation on forestry since the Scottish Parliament was reconvened in 1999. As the bill progresses through Parliament, we are committed to continuing the consensual approach that we demonstrated in the forestry debate that we had in January. I met bilaterally with all the political parties prior to the bill’s introduction, and I offer to do so again between stages 1 and 2, if that would be of interest to members.

The bill is about completing the devolution of forestry, which is a manifesto and programme for government commitment. I hope that the policy commands a degree of cross-party support. Following devolution, forestry will be fully accountable to the people of Scotland, through Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament. Funding for forestry will continue to be provided via the Scottish budget, which is scrutinised and approved by the Scottish Parliament. New organisational structures are being created for forestry to deliver the functions that are conferred on ministers, and new collaborative—I emphasise that word—cross-border arrangements are being established for functions that are best dealt with through co-operation with other Governments.

I have been listening to stakeholder views about the new structures—in particular, views about bringing the policy and regulatory arm of the Forestry Commission Scotland into the Scottish Government. I understand that some people are concerned that that may lead to a loss of skills and interchange, such that forestry may somehow be lost within the main stream of the civil service. Without in any way denigrating or diminishing those concerns, to which I have listened carefully, I do not agree that that will happen. Forestry will be at front and centre of the rural economy and we will continue to need skilled and experienced staff to deliver our ambitions.

Over the summer, I had the pleasure of visiting all five conservancy offices, from Dumfries to Dingwall, with Jo O’Hara. I did so specifically to meet the staff in order to learn about and discuss their concerns, and to reassure them and, perhaps, dispel some of those concerns. The new structures are the best way to deliver our ambitions for forestry: I am committed to continued engagement with staff and the sector in order to address concerns, as the structures are set up.

In short, the new arrangements will continue the ethos and spirit of Forestry Commission Scotland. I am entirely committed to that.

I will turn to the bill to comment on its main provisions if I may, convener. I am trying to stick to the time limit, so I ask you to cut me off if I go on too long—because that happens sometimes, apparently.

Surely not, cabinet secretary.

Thank you for that.

Part 2 of the bill is about forestry functions on tree health and silvicultural material testing functions. The bill will place two important new duties on Scottish ministers: to “promote sustainable forest management” and to prepare, publish and “have regard to” a Scottish forestry strategy. The strategy will be the place to set out high-level objectives, priorities and policies for the economic, environmental and social aspects of forestry. It will be where we will define “sustainable forest management” and state how we intend to promote it. We anticipate that the strategy will cover such areas as woodland creation, timber production and development, increasing community engagement, environmental impacts, urban forestry, and the threats from pests, diseases and climate change.

Part 3 deals with land management and provides powers for the minister to manage the national forest estate in a way that contributes to multiple outcomes. That part also introduces new powers for ministers to manage land for the purposes of sustainable development.

Part 4 is the new regulatory regime for felling trees and restocking. The regime details are to be set out in secondary legislation in order to enable a more flexible, agile and risk-based regulatory regime.

Part 5 contains general powers to enable ministers to carry out their duties, and part 6 has general and final provisions.

In conclusion, I look forward to working constructively and collaboratively over the remaining passage of the bill in this session in order to complete the devolution of forestry to the Scottish Parliament. I look forward to working with the committee to that end.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. There are a lot of questions to get through. I will kick off straight away with Jamie Greene’s questions.

Good morning to the panel and the cabinet secretary. The structural and organisational changes that are proposed in the bill are already something of a fait accompli, so I hope that the cabinet secretary will forgive me for taking a step back to ask him, given the many positive things that we have heard about the Forestry Commission Scotland and FES, what is wrong with the status quo?

The status quo is what we are changing: we seek to complete the devolution of forestry to make it accountable to the people of Scotland, through the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.

At the moment, we have two separate arms, although they are regarded as one and, indeed, work as one. They work extremely collaboratively; Jo O’Hara and Simon Hodge and their teams work as one, but they are two—Forest Enterprise Scotland and the Forestry Commission Scotland. The Forestry Commission Scotland is part of the Forestry Commission UK, which is part of, and is accountable to, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Instead of that arrangement, Forest Enterprise Scotland will cease to be an agency of the Forestry Commission and will become an agency of the Scottish Government, and the Forestry Commission Scotland will become a division of the Scottish Government. However, from the point of view of the staff and their work, they will carry on as is. The new arrangements will improve accountability; Parliament will have the scrutiny role that will bring forestry to centre stage in a way that I suggest has not necessarily been the case since Parliament was reconvened. I think that that will be a very good thing.

The cabinet secretary mentioned increased accountability and scrutiny resulting from the changes. In last week’s evidence session, the concern was raised that, at the moment, the two organisations report separately and are, therefore, more accountable than they would be if they were integrated into the Scottish Government. What is your view on that?

I do not share that concern. My experience over the past year and a bit has been of working extremely closely with Simon Hodge and Jo O’Hara, and I think that the new arrangements will clarify accountability and responsibility. At the moment, responsibility is diffuse, because the Scottish Government is substantially the funder, although the Forestry Commission is a UK body.

That is my experience. Simon Hodge and Jo O’Hara have been in place for some time, so it might be useful for the committee—with your permission, convener—to get their insights from the front, as it were. I appreciate the importance of the question that Mr Greene has asked.

I am in the odd position of being a forestry commissioner as well as a civil servant who is answerable to Mr Ewing, so I live and breathe the issue every day. The situation is uncomfortable, it is awkward and it is unclear. The role of commissioner has a statutory basis in the Forestry Act 1967, but the reality is that policy is devolved—I answer on policy—and the budget comes from the Scottish Parliament.

The new arrangements will enable the legislation to catch up with the reality of what is happening and make it much more clear and transparent to anyone on the outside. People understand the positions of a minister and an official, but I constantly have to say that I am also a commissioner and explain how that fits into things. The new arrangements represent modernisation of the legislation so that it can catch up with the reality in practice.

I echo what Jo O’Hara said, entirely. In addition, Forest Enterprise Scotland manages the national forest estate, which is owned by the Scottish ministers, but we are accountable in some measure to a cross-border body for how we do so. Again, that is sometimes difficult to handle. There is an opportunity here to bring things into better alignment, in terms of accountability to Scotland.

Thank you for that clarification.

The cabinet secretary mentioned some of the concerns that have been raised with us in previous meetings about expertise being lost as people become part of the civil service, as opposed to being part of a separate organisation that is focused on forestry. I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s commitment to ensuring that that does not happen. Can we strengthen the bill to ensure that there is no way that current expertise can be lost as a result of the restructuring?

I do not think that expertise will be lost, and we value the expertise of the staff very highly. The woodland officers—of whom I met a great many in the second-last week of August, as I said—have the expertise in silviculture. They will continue to deal with applications and they—not ministers—will ensure that good practice and forestry standards are adhered to. They will ensure that we do not replicate the mistakes of the past—for example, planting on peatlands—and they will ensure that the forestry strategy is fulfilled.

This will be the first time that there has been a statutory duty to have a forestry strategy. I am interested in hearing the wider views of the committee on that, because it seems to me that that duty presents the opportunity to set out clearly the functions, which will then continue to be delivered by staff.

Local staff will remain vital sources of regional knowledge—I have become aware that there are vastly different circumstances in relation to silviculture in different parts of the country, given the different terrains and habitats. Forestry decisions will continue to be taken by forestry experts; they will not be micromanaged, nor will there be centralisation of functions.

Let me finish with this point, on which it might be useful to get views from Simon Hodge and Jo O’Hara, who are the experts. The forestry strategy will give us an opportunity to set out the target of planting 10,000 hectares per annum—and rising—which I think we have agreed across the political spectrum. There will then be a statutory duty in that regard, which I will have to fulfil. Simon Hodge or Jo O’Hara might add to that, because the question is extremely important.

Please be relatively brief, because there are quite a lot of questions and I would like to ask two questions before we move off this theme.

10:15  

Forest Enterprise Scotland manages 1.5 million acres of Scotland, and a range of technical expertise is essential to do that. It is my job to ensure that that expertise continues and that it provides Government with a practical outlook on land management. My plea is that it involve not just forestry and foresters—although I am one, and they are very important—but civil engineers, landscape architects, land agents, geographic information systems technicians and procurement experts. A huge range of professional expertise is critically important, and I am very positive about the way in which the Scottish Government is supporting that.

From my point of view, the focus on forestry, rather than on what is in the legislation, is the important thing. We have found—Jim Mackinnon pointed this out in his report, with which I know members are familiar—that the increased focus on forestry brings with it an increased focus on forestry skills for us, as the regulator and Government’s adviser.

Regardless of the legislation, the important thing is that the need to have professional foresters advising Government on forestry had been identified. We already have work streams in process looking at how we develop and train woodland officers. That is absolutely important and crucial, particularly in the context of the Scottish forestry strategy.

When we were hearing evidence last week, Malcolm Crosby said that people who work in both organisations have extreme concerns about the restructuring. Cabinet secretary, in your opening statement you said clearly that those concerns were not reflected in what you heard on the ground when you visited the offices. Malcolm Crosby said that people were not expressing their views up the chain. Can you assure the committee that Malcolm Crosby is wrong and that there are no concerns? He was quite clear about that.

I did not say that I heard no concerns when I went round the five conservancy offices. Obviously some people had concerns. That is absolutely clear, and I should make it clear, if I did not do so previously.

In the discussions that I had with Jo O’Hara and the local conservators, we were able to provide a number of basic assurances. I have discussed those with Malcolm Crosby, whom I think I have met along with the trade union representatives across the board on two or three occasions. It is very important that I continue to engage with those people: I will do that.

First, there will be no compulsory redundancies. Secondly, the local office network will remain. It is the vital source—the hub—of the Forestry Commission Scotland’s activity. In a sense, what is happening is not actually a reorganisation. There are two bodies at the moment—Forest Enterprise and the Forestry Commission—and there will continue to be two bodies, so the suggestion that there is one body at the moment is not correct in law. In practice the bodies operate as one, although Forest Enterprise operates as the trading arm and the Forestry Commission operates as the regulatory arm. It makes sense to separate the regulation and implementation functions, rather than have them being done by the same body.

I appreciate that Malcolm Crosby has sincerely held concerns. Some staff expressed those to me; others did not. However, that was not the most important thing in the discussion. The most important thing was that I gained a sense—Jo O’Hara was at all the meetings and can give her perspective—that staff were reassured that they would be valued as the people who deliver the forestry policy for Scotland. They are proud of that; it is a calling and a vocation. It became evident to me that that is the case and that we must preserve the ethos and spirit of the Forestry Commission. Why on earth would we not want to do that? It is a precious thing in itself.

Although there are concerns, I felt that the visits were useful in helping to dispel some of them. However, I certainly would not say that Malcolm Crosby was wrong—far from it. He is doing his job and representing his members, and I respect that.

I am going to leave that there, cabinet secretary, because there are a lot of questions. The next one is from Stewart Stevenson.

Thank you, convener. I want to move to part 3 of the bill, “Management of Land by Scottish Ministers”. I have a number of issues, but I will start with the one that has come up in our deliberations thus far. Part 3 starts with:

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

The definition of “forestry land” is provided at section 10, the national forest estate is defined at section 11 and section 12 states that

“Ministers must publish a description of forestry land”.

However, the bill does not address the issue of what sustainable forest management is. What does the cabinet secretary think it is, and how should lawmakers such as ourselves, and the courts in future, consider what sustainable forest management is?

As I think I said at the outset, what sustainable forest management is will be set out in the forestry strategy. That will be the right place to go into the details of that, and that is our plan. I defer in this matter to Jo O’Hara, who perhaps can amplify that basic answer.

There is a question here of what happens in practice and what is in legislation. There are working definitions of sustainable forest management at a very high level; at the most basic level, it means that you replace trees when you harvest them—that is the basic understanding. There are various understandings of the definition between those levels.

The one that we use across the UK, and which all four Governments in the UK have signed up to, is the UK forestry standard. It is well understood and regularly developed. That is the sort of thing that we will get into in the Scottish forestry strategy, where we will say, “This is the current interpretation of ‘sustainable forest management’.” Because it is a developing science, that is probably a more appropriate place to discuss it, and that is where it will be laid out.

That is fine, and I am comfortable to hear you say it, but under “Forestry Strategy”, section 3(2) of the bill says that the strategy must do various things and includes reference to

“policies with respect to the promotion of sustainable forest management”

and setting out

“other matters with respect to the promotion of sustainable forest management.”

Section 3(3) talks about

“the conservation and enhancement of the environment by means of sustainable forest management”.

There are plenty of references to how to implement it, but there is no duty in what is before us to help us understand what it is that is being implemented via the strategy. Would it therefore be helpful for what I have just heard Jo O’Hara say to be more clearly expressed in the bill—for example, at section 3(3)(a), which mentions

“the economic development of forestry”?

I know that the forest industries—which do not get a great deal of reference—have concerns about ensuring that a continuous flow of forest raw materials will be delivered to them. I am not sure that I see that matter expressed in the bill. There might be some gaps—perhaps they are gaps in my understanding rather than gaps in the bill.

I think that placing a definition in law in the bill would mean that the definition could not be updated to reflect changes.

I think that I am right in saying that sustainable forest management is not a static but a dynamic concept. As a relative newcomer to this area, I have read the forestry standards, of which there was recently a light review. I read some of them, and I did not understand every part of them, because I am not a silviculturist, nor am I qualified in forestry.

The point is that the forestry standards have recently been reviewed—they are dynamic, not static. From a technical drafting point of view, the risk is that, if you place the definition in the bill, it might become outmoded or restrictive in, say, a decade’s time. Therefore, the place for the definition is in the forestry strategy. That is certainly not an attempt to achieve anything other than the flexibility that we seek.

In response to Mr Stevenson, let me say that it is essential that we recognise the needs of the economy and the need to provide a continuing ready supply of productive timber for our sawmills for oriented strand boards. I am thinking of companies such as Norbord and EGGER, BSW Timber, James Jones & Sons and Glennon Brothers and the whole panoply of companies beneath them that are such a crucial part of our economy. We need a balance, of course, but Mr Stevenson is right that we must not neglect the economic aspects.

I think that I hear somebody saying that there are other timber companies outwith the cabinet secretary’s constituency that may also be relevant. On that note, does Stewart Stevenson want to follow up?

We are, of course, talking about land that is forestry land and, therefore, Government land. We could legislate to cover private land, but the bill does not try to do that. One thing that has arisen is the matter of how the forestry strategy will be dealt with in parliamentary terms. Should it be submitted to Parliament in draft so that, before it is finalised, there is an opportunity for Parliament to consider its contents and suggest to ministers any changes that might be useful or appropriate? Is the cabinet secretary minded to think in those terms for the parliamentary process? The bill would not, I think, prohibit that from happening, but it does not mandate that it has to.

The bill will by definition bring far greater scrutiny to the Parliament, which is accountable directly to the people of Scotland. The provision in the bill calling for there to be a forestry strategy further increases that accountability. As for the process that Mr Stevenson referred to, the process for developing a forestry strategy is well established and the bill includes a requirement to consult. I believe that laying the strategy before Parliament is the appropriate process in this case. Of course, I am very keen to hear the committee’s views after it has carefully considered all the evidence that it receives.

Thank you, cabinet secretary. Fulton MacGregor has the next question.

You mentioned cross-border working in your opening statement, and other speakers have touched on it too. Can you expand on the conversations that you referred to about how that might be implemented?

There are certain aspects for which it is prudent and right in principle to continue to work on a cross-border basis. One example is disease, which is an extremely serious issue for forest management. Some of the diseases have had disastrous consequences environmentally and economically. Diseases do not respect borders and it is right that we co-operate across these islands and continue to work together on tree health in order to tackle the challenges of those diseases directly.

Secondly, for forestry science and research, much of which looks into tree health and disease, it is similarly important to continue to co-operate. We have an excellent facility in Scotland in the Forestry Commission that deals with research, but there are also similar groups of scientists and experts in England. Continued work in that area would be sensible and prudent. We also believe that it will ensure continuity for the sector, particularly for the scientists and the research.

As far as direct engagement is concerned, I have met the UK minister, Thérèse Coffey, and my Welsh counterpart, Lesley Griffiths. I am encouraged by the discussions between the Governments that have taken place so far. They all agree that collaboration on those matters should continue.

Can you clarify your opinion on whether Forest Research should be a single joint UK body? Is that your preferred option?

10:30  

We will co-operate across the UK. We are committed to ensuring that there are on-going effective cross-border arrangements where that makes sense and meets Scottish needs.

I want to look at part 3 of the bill, sections 9 to 12; another member will pick up section 13 onwards—although they overlap a bit.

We have heard evidence that there is confusion over some of the definitions and titles and how they interact with each other. I am thinking in particular of section 10 on the national forest estate and the meaning of “forestry land” and “other land”. Similarly, there is the issue that forestry land should be managed to promote “sustainable forest development”, while “other land” is for “sustainable development”.

Could people be confused by those terms, or is that just the best that we can do?

Having spent most of my life as a lawyer I would say that where there is legislation there tends to be an element of confusion. [Laughter.] That remark was not meant to be entirely flippant.

We must recognise that the national forest estate comprises forestry and non-forestry land. Members will be aware that Simon Hodge and his teams deal with a wide range of functions other than the principal one of forestry. I give the examples of tourism at Glentress and the renewable energy scheme, which brings in an income of £10 million a year and has been developed very effectively by Forest Enterprise. Another example might be working with communities, such as in Abriachan, which is outwith my constituency although not far from my patch. Housing for local community groups is another function.

I mention those briefly because it is important to bear it in mind that Forest Enterprise is not solely devoted to forestry. Over the last century, since the Forestry Commission was established, it has accresced functions. More trees were needed after the first world war and that was the sole purpose of the Forestry Commission at that time. However, we must bear it in mind that, since then, tourism, the environment, housing, community interests and renewable energy have all been added to its scope.

We need to approach the issue of definition carefully and consider the questions that have been raised by the various stakeholders very seriously. That work has already started and we want to continue it with the committee. I am sure that Carole Barker-Munro can answer any more detailed and difficult questions if members wish to ask them.

Does that mean that the Government will lodge amendments or make proposals of its own?

Where there is a bill there tend to be amendments. If the member does not want to use the committee’s time by exploring those—to some extent—legal questions today, I can assure him that we are taking very seriously and looking very carefully at the definitions issues that have been raised. There will certainly be some amendments. We recognise that there is a need for clarity. I suspect that Barry McCaffrey or Carole Barker-Munro can provide better answers than I can.

I cannot speak for my colleagues, but if you say that you are considering that evidence—

If it is not out of order, perhaps I can suggest that, if the committee wishes, it should raise any specific questions on definitions with us as soon as possible and we will come back to you on that. We are happy to do that as quickly as possible.

I have just checked with the clerks and our report is due in the next few weeks. There have been significant questions, so any clarity that you or your colleagues and assistants can give us would be much appreciated. As you will know, the time that we have in which to consider that before our report needs to be complete is very short.

I will leave that point, if others are happy. My other point is that Confor said:

“Management of forestry land should include a duty on ministers to maintain the productive capacity of the National Forest Estate.”

Do you have any sympathy for that?

We have to ensure that. It is a very valid point. How it is encapsulated and dealt with in legislation is a mixed question of policy and drafting. However, I accept that Confor is absolutely right that we need to maintain the national forest estate’s productive capacity.

I will concentrate on the management of land to further sustainable development.

Among the many things that you have to do, you have to manage land. The Community Woodland Association stated:

“We welcome the proposed duty on Scottish Ministers to promote sustainable forest management … but believe it would be useful to clarify the definition and use of this phrase”.

Scottish Environment LINK noted:

“There is very little reference of the UK Forest Standard (UKFS) in the policy memorandum (and no reference in the Bill)”.

What criteria will be used to determine whether land is being managed, or will be managed, for the purpose of furthering sustainable development?

It is probably best if Simon Hodge answers that.

To be simplistic, it is about Government forestry land and other land. Our overall aim is sustainable management of the estate. In my mind, that principally falls out into land with forest on it, which we manage according to a set of standards that is appropriate to forestry, and land that does not have forest on it, which we manage to a set of standards that is appropriate to wider activities. The cabinet secretary mentioned some of those earlier; I add our agricultural activity to that.

Our current approach is to look to the principles of sustainable land use in the land use strategy, which lays out a good set of principles against which we plan in our strategic planning for the national forest estate. That is a good umbrella set of principles that is appropriate for the management of state land.

How do you propose that the forestry strategy, and the duty to promote sustainable forest management in the bill, will link to the UK forestry standard? Do the Scottish ministers intend to go above and beyond—as I know the cabinet secretary always wants to—the UKFS by working to sustainable forest management?

Simon, I think that you are in the frame to answer that question as well.

Yes. In one sense, we find it to be a well-codified process because the international sustainable forestry certification bodies have adopted the UK forestry standard. That means that we have an annual certification audit across all the forestry on the national forest estate that assesses us against, in effect, the UK forestry standard but codified as an internationally recognised standard for sustainable forest management. That assessment always looks for us to do more and improve and we are always positive and keen to do that, particularly recognising that our role is not only to manage land sustainably but to act as an exemplar for others to follow.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. As you heard earlier, I am here on behalf of the ECCLR Committee, to which I will report back. That committee will also do a report. I much appreciate the opportunity to participate.

In that context, I want to ask why the bill is not better integrated with other Scottish Government policies, such as biodiversity, deer management and climate change. At last week’s committee meeting, Willie McGhee of the Forest Policy Group said that the bill could be more innovative, Peter Peacock from Community Land Scotland said that the bill should be aligned with other legislation on economic and social development, and Maggie Keegan of the Scottish Wildlife Trust said that the bill could deliver more. Deer management was mentioned as the biggest threat to woodland in Scotland. Although I understand and respect the point that was made earlier about the forest strategy—that things need to be dynamic, not static—it is still valid to point out that there are overarching issues that we should consider including in the bill before stage 2.

We are aware of the desire of a number of the witnesses and stakeholders to ensure that there is alignment across the various dictates and requirements of an integrated rural development and land use policy, including protection of the environment. Those matters are among those set out in the bill that must be considered and to which regard must be had in the preparation of the forestry strategy.

It is partly a question of legal draftsmanship. When one has a bill on forestry, the purpose is to set out the law on forestry. One does not, as a matter of form and draftsmanship, restate existing duties that are there and to which regard must be had because they are existing statutory duties and provisions. As a matter of technical form, we would not restate things that are stated elsewhere. Law does not really do that, and nor should it, because where would you stop? Law has to be clear, carefully defined, capable of being understood and sufficiently clear in its format to be able to be interpreted by the courts. I say that as a lawyer, not as a minister—once a lawyer, you cannot really stop being a lawyer, I am afraid. That is why we do not have a whole plethora of other issues in the bill. It does not mean that they are not taken seriously; of course they are, but I wanted to stress that.

Jo O’Hara can correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that adherence to the forestry standards means that we have possibly the highest regulatory standards in the world. The duties to have regard to biodiversity, to habitats and to the environment—in particular, by not planting on deep peatlands—are a necessary concomitant of our commitment to adhere to the FS. Those things are well understood in the whole vocation and practice of the forestry profession in Scotland.

Would Claudia Beamish like to hear from Jo O’Hara?

That would be helpful, and she may well answer the point that I wanted to follow with.

I would back up exactly what Mr Ewing said. Throughout my time in the profession, we have been on a journey to develop our understanding of what sustainable forest management is. As I mentioned earlier, developing the UK FS has been a process that will continue as our understanding of the social, environmental and economic aspects of forestry develops. It is the floor on which other things happen. However, using forestry to deliver biodiversity, climate change and social objectives goes beyond sustainable forest management; that is the role of the forest strategy. It is important to retain those two different concepts in your head. The third aspect is bringing that into law, which brings me back to the organisational arrangements. Bringing us within the Scottish Government means that we have to deliver the Government’s agenda on all those aspects—we do anyway, but it makes it much clearer—without the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or a cross-border body getting in the way. All those things come together to achieve the outcome that you are talking about.

I have a brief supplementary. Section 4 of the bill, on the preparation of a forest strategy, refers to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, under which there are statutory duties, and to

“the land rights and responsibilities statement”.

In view of the importance of biodiversity, our statutory obligations in that regard and the complexities of deer management, for instance, would it not be appropriate to refer to those in an overarching sense there?

10:45  

I think that Carole Barker-Munro can give the copperplate answer.

And a brief one, I hope.

No pressure there. As the cabinet secretary said, where there is an existing statutory duty, such duties are not duplicated in the bill, so the climate change targets are not in the bill; nor is the biodiversity duty.

Section 4 of the bill relates to strategies that are required by law but do not impose duties on Scottish ministers with regard to how to act—those are swept up in section 4. Claudia Beamish mentioned a long list of other policies and there will no doubt be an increasing list in future. The intention is to deal with those under section 3(3), which covers the economic, environmental and social aspects of forestry.

I have a brief question on this theme. There has been some concern that the wording of section 14 of the bill is vague. Will you clarify the intention of that section and whether you believe that the wording should be tightened up?

I think that Carole can probably give a more succinct answer.

The purpose of section 14 is to provide a power for ministers to enter into arrangements with other parties to manage land on their behalf. The arrangements are by consent so there is no compulsion. The power is not new. Forest Enterprise Scotland already manages land on behalf of a number of other people. The current power is in section 3 of the Forestry Act 1967. The language in the bill has been modernised and updated but it reflects a current policy outcome and our policy is that it should continue in the future.

Just to clarify—we are talking about voluntary arrangements between two parties with no compulsion?

The arrangements are by mutual consent.

The next theme will be started off by the deputy convener, Gail Ross.

I would like to touch on sections 15, 16 and 17, which deal with the acquisition of land by agreement, the compulsory purchase of land and the power to dispose of land. The bill gives Scottish ministers for the first time compulsory purchase powers to further the achievement of sustainable development. Compulsory purchase powers are in the 1967 act but they have not been used since the act was introduced. Why do we need those powers?

As I understand it, such powers are commonly provided for public bodies that are required to carry out functions in relation to the transaction of land and property. Of course, one of the main functions of Forest Enterprise Scotland is to do precisely that.

My understanding is, as Gail Ross has said, that those compulsory purchase powers have not been used for 50 years, but they are there as a backstop. It would be helpful if Simon Hodge could give some examples of circumstances in which it might conceivably be appropriate to exercise the compulsory purchase order powers, even though there has not been a requirement to use them for half a century.

As the cabinet secretary indicated, we have not utilised such powers but, in relation to sustainable forest management and timber transport, for example, one could imagine a situation in which timber is landlocked through a ransom strip. There are no examples in relation to wider sustainable development, because CPO powers have not been used, but if Scottish ministers wished their land management body to get engaged in activities in relation to conservation or protection of vulnerable habitats, for example, one could conceive of situations in which we could be asked to step in and use a CPO power. However, as I say, I have no examples because I have no experience of a CPO being utilised.

I take your point that because the powers have not been used, you have no examples. However, the very fact that the powers are in the bill has been contentious both among people we have taken evidence from—organisations are completely split on the issue—and committee members, who have various views on compulsory purchase. Because it is unclear how the powers might be used, the committee does not have the confidence to say whether they are needed. I take the point that there are no examples from the past, but if such a contentious issue is to be in the bill, we really need concrete examples, so that the committee can move on.

Let me answer that in two ways: one general and one specific. First, CPO powers exist as a backstop power, which is to be used not in the first instance but as a last resort. An obvious example is the construction of new roads or other transport infrastructure for which purpose it is sometimes necessary compulsorily to purchase land. That is always a last resort, but such a power is routinely possessed by public authorities, from local authorities to central Government. It is not new; it is commonly encountered.

The fact that CPO powers have not been used for 50 years in the context of forestry is testament to successful negotiation, but of course negotiation has been conducted on the basis that there is a backstop power that could be used, in extremis. The existence of such powers informs and helps to encourage the reaching of a negotiated conclusion.

In the absence of such powers, there would be no means to lever negotiations to a successful conclusion in the case of the ransom strip that Simon Hodge described. That is a specific example—and it is not a theoretical but a very practical example. If we have thousands of hectares of landlocked, trapped timber, which is inaccessible by road or other means, and a ransom strip is preventing vehicular access for the equipment that is necessary to extract felled trees, it might be necessary to compulsorily purchase land. It has not been necessary to do that over the past 50 years, but in future it could be necessary to use CPO powers to purchase a ransom strip that is holding up sustainable development and essential access to timber as a resource for communities and businesses.

CPO powers are fairly routine, but I appreciate that there are concerns. I am aware that Scottish Land & Estates, with which we have good relations, has raised the issue, as others have done. We will see what the committee says in its report, and I certainly undertake to study the issue carefully, to see whether, at stage 2, the use of the power should be more tightly defined and constrained, perhaps by reference to the implementation of the forestry strategy and the other duties on ministers. If there are other technical means of ensuring that the power is used only for purposes that most reasonable people would perceive as not just necessary but essential, I will be happy to consider them.

However, I am clear that such provision is common and routinely encountered across the public sector and is no stranger to anyone who is involved in the scrutiny of legislation.

Cabinet secretary, members are queueing up to speak on this subject.

Cabinet secretary, thank you for your explanation. A worry that has been expressed to us is that there will be not just a continuation but an extension of compulsory purchase powers in relation to sustainable development. Will you commit to look at that, too, with a view to explaining more about how the proposed approach will work?

We will look carefully at any recommendation that the committee comes up with, because we want to work consensually. That is the right thing to do.

The phrase “sustainable development” is very familiar to legislators and lawyers. There have been discussions in the context of previous bills—some of which I have been involved with—about whether to apply a definition of the phrase. However, as far as I am aware, that is not the approach that parliamentary draftsmen have adopted, not least because the term is very well accepted by and familiar to the judiciary. The legal fraternity will correct me if I am wrong when I say that Lord Gill himself said that the term is well understood and familiar to the judiciary and those who interpret the law. There can be no higher endorsement than that, if I may say so.

I invite Peter Chapman and Mike Rumbles to ask just one specific question each, because I am mindful of the time.

I want to reflect the anxiety that exists among various groups from whom we have taken evidence. The problem is that the power is being widened to cover sustainable development and, possibly, the compulsory purchase of land that is then given to community groups to manage. There are real concerns out there, which I share. The Government wants to take a consensual approach and achieve cross-party support for the bill, but this bit of the bill is the most difficult bit for me and the other Conservative members of the committee—we have real problems with it. At the moment, the power is too broad, so I welcome the promise to look at it. We have to make it a lot more focused and rein it in because there are real concerns about it.

Was there a question in there, Mr Chapman?

The question is: how can we make this bit of the bill acceptable to the land managers out there who have said that it is a real problem for them?

We will listen carefully. I undertake to study those issues carefully.

Mike, do you have a question?

Yes. On compulsory purchase powers, Charles Dundas from the Woodland Trust said:

“In principle, the fact that the powers have not been exercised in several generations suggests that there is no cause to have them. If I were the cabinet secretary, I would consider this a great public relations opportunity to say, ‘Look at me. I’m turning down powers that I could have.’ However, I am not the cabinet secretary.”—[Official Report, Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, 6 September 2017; c 44.]

Cabinet secretary, will you do something that I have never known any minister of any Government since 1999 to do and willingly give up these unnecessary powers?

Cabinet secretary, you can say “Yes” or “No” or “I’m going to think about it.”

No.

I had to try.

My objective is not to secure the best public relations but to get the right legislation. The fact that the powers have not been used does not mean that one can conclude that they have had no influence. As someone who was involved in negotiations in conveyancing and property transactions for 20 years, I can say that if those powers did not exist as a backstop, it is quite possible that the successful outcome of the negotiations secured by Simon Hodge and his team would not have occurred. I respect Mr Dundas’s views and those of the Woodland Trust, with which we work closely, but I respectfully disagree with his proposition.

We will move on to the next section, on which Rhoda Grant will lead.

A number of people have flagged up concerns about the definition of community body in the bill and its definition in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. Is there a reason for the difference between the two definitions?

Definitions are one of Carole Barker-Munro’s many areas of expertise.

Again—no pressure.

There are four different definitions of community body in the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015. The definition of community body in the Forestry Act 1967 is the definition that is carried forward into the bill. The definitions are different because they serve different purposes. However, we acknowledge that a number of people raised concerns around the provisions and we are listening to those concerns.

I will move on to some of those concerns around sections 18 to 20. We heard evidence that they might not be required because the bill is different and section 17 gives ministers powers to dispose of land for sale, gift or lease, which, it was assumed, would cover community bodies. Is there a reason for having three sections that are entirely on community bodies? Does that give them a different status, given the powers that are mentioned in section 17?

11:00  

The bill almost provides another avenue for communities to access publicly owned land. Our starting point was the Forestry Act 1967, which had provisions to allow the Forestry Commission to overcome a specific legal hurdle.

We are listening to concerns about the fact that part 5 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 is now in force for asset transfers and there could be an element of overlap. We are exploring that.

On part 5, the Community Woodlands Association made the suggestion that the present wording could give rise to the prospect that a group that would be eligible to buy could not lease, and vice versa. Do you undertake to pick that up in the review?

I am sorry; I did not quite follow your question. Are you talking about part 5 of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015?

Yes.

I am afraid that that is outwith my knowledge. If you have a specific question about the 2015 act, I can follow it up, but the operation of the 2015 act and asset transfer is outside the scope of the bill.

I will write to you on that specific issue.

I have a question for the cabinet secretary. Do you think that the bill affords the opportunity to create a wider pattern of ownership and operation of forestry in Scotland?

There are opportunities irrespective of the bill. For some time, there has been a move towards supporting community ownership and there are established policies that John Finnie will be aware of as they have been invoked frequently in the Highlands, which we both represent. The direction of travel, which we support, is to seek to ascertain how communities can be involved and the part that community ownership can play. The bill does not preclude or seek to constrain those opportunities in any way.

If there are opportunities for more community ownership, that would be a very good thing, although the questions of structure, finance, rights and responsibilities are inherently complex. In relation to community energy policy and renewable energy, we have seen many community ownership projects, which have been well supported by this Parliament, and I see no reason why there could not be similar opportunities in forestry.

We move on to the issue of felling and control of felling. Most people accept that the legislation has worked extremely well in the past and that felling is done in accordance with the law. The bill does not quite reflect previous felling legislation. Is there a reason for that? Stakeholders have asked that question.

I have been involved in discussions about that. It is partly a question of definition. It has been drawn to my attention that the definition of felling is “intentionally killing a tree”, which seems to me to be the first parliamentary definition with a macabre element to the draftsmanship. However, the definition is not correct, because certain types of tree are not killed if they are felled. An amendment is plainly required to put that definition out of its misery, as it were.

I am aware that there is a question of definition—we are well seized of that. I do not know which of my array of officials would like to answer the wider question—perhaps Catherine Murdoch would.

When people look at the bill versus the previous legislation, they see a lack of detail on some fronts, which is perhaps what the convener’s question is getting at.

Requirements relating to felling are subsidiary to the bill whereas they were actually in the primary legislation previously.

The exemptions that set the parameters of the current regime are partly in the Forestry Act 1967 and partly in regulations—they can be amended by regulation, too.

In the bill, we propose a mechanism by which we will review all the exemptions with stakeholders. Now that the bill has been introduced and they can understand the framework, we are speaking to them about whether the exemptions need to be reviewed. It is worth highlighting that not all of the current exemptions are in the 1967 act; some have been amended by amendments to the act and some have been added by regulations. At the moment, the picture is muddled for practitioners; I hope that having everything in regulations will make things clearer.

We have been given a specific example. Power companies that want to ensure supply and keep the ground next to their power lines clear of trees have an exemption. They may well fell more than 5 cubic metres of timber in the process, and they have specifically raised with the committee the question whether they will need a felling licence to do that. If they do, it will clog up the system.

The intention is that we will recreate exemptions that work, such as that one, or that we will tweak exemptions to make them work better in the future. There is no suggestion that we will drop such exemptions.

Some people have said that felling timber for firewood is a good idea; one person has said that it is not. Would that be an exemption that you would carry forward? The purpose of my question is to give people who manage forestry some confidence that the regulations will not take a huge amount of time to implement and that there will not be an interregnum when the bill is passed, which would stop people getting on with proper management and silviculture operations.

I hope that our work is allaying some of those fears. We are in contact with people who have given evidence to the committee and with others who we know have an interest to ensure that they are involved in the review of what is in place at the moment, which is the starting point for those conversations.

Quite a lot of the exemptions will not have a great impact on the forestry sector, such as the one that allows people to fell in orchards. We are alert to the fact that it is not just the sector that we should speak to; we need to speak to everyone who is affected by what might be considered peripheral exemptions.

I would like to follow that up with a point about the general commencement of the legislation. Towards the end of the bill, there is a power to commence various sections at different times. The intention is for there to be no gap between the operation of the existing regime under the 1967 act and the operation of the new one.

The bill says that timber can be directed to be felled for good economic and sustainable forest management reasons—I regret that I cannot point you directly to the relevant section in the bill. Does that mean that the cabinet secretary could demand that a forest owner fells timber at a particular time for economic reasons, or would that be done only for health reasons?

There is a carry-forward from the 1967 act. Felling directions are currently available for the purposes of timber management, and we have slightly extended that approach in the bill to allow the direction to cover any aspect of sustainable forest management

I want to be clear about that. With regard to timber management, the committee has heard evidence that there will be a period—in 2035—when timber will be in short supply. Will the cabinet secretary be able to use that power for economic reasons and to instruct people to fell their forests to smooth out the shortfall in supply? Is that the policy intention?

I do not think that that is the intention of that provision. It is merely a carry-forward that has been extended to update the approach. I entirely agree with those who have pointed out that a dip in the anticipated annual tonnage of production is expected circa 2035. That is an important economic factor because I am told that it influences potential investment decisions and the willingness of funders to invest.

I think that we all agree that forestry is a long-term business. We have targets because we recognise that we need a balance and a mix of different species of trees, with each tree in the right place. However, beyond those environmental and silvicultural dictates, we also require to meet the needs of the economy, and that means having productive species. Those who make that argument make it well, but the particular provision in the bill that we are discussing is, as far as I am aware, not intended to achieve the conferral of powers on me for that purpose.

Barry McCaffrey is straining at the leash to get in.

I simply want to clarify matters for the convener. Section 31 sets out clearly that

“Subsection (2) applies if ... felling of trees is required ... to prevent deterioration or further deterioration in the quality of timber ... to improve the growth of other trees, or ... to prevent or reduce harm caused by the presence of the trees.”

The parameters are therefore clearly set out in that section.

So we are confident that the bill will not force people to fell trees for economic reasons.

We will now move on to the next area.

Chapter 6 is about notices to comply and so on. I propose to deal with the matter in two parts. One question is: if there is a register, who should do the registering? I think that that issue has been raised in evidence. First, however, is there a need for a register? It appears that the drafting of the bill was directed at ensuring that continuing conditions, which primarily relate to replanting after felling, are seen and acted on in the public domain. Is that the policy intention behind having that in the bill? Is the current system working or not working?

The bill will enable but will not require the registration of notices. Registration in the land register will ensure that conditions and directions are legally enforceable if ownership changes, so they are binding on singular successors. The risk is that, if they are not so registered, they will not be binding on singular successors, so the conditions that we wish to have observed and implemented may not be observed and implemented by a singular successor. That is the rationale, as I understand it. Jo O’Hara can speak to the practical aspects of that better than I can.

This is about ensuring that, if somebody felled and did not restock and we issued restocking notices, we would be able to enforce those notices. The bill will enable; there is no requirement, as the cabinet secretary said. It is important that we have that power in place to ensure that the site gets restocked if there is a change of ownership. That is basically what sustainable forest management is about.

I presume that you are referring to section 35(2), which says:

“The Scottish Ministers may apply to register a notice”.

The context in which that would happen that we are being pointed to is a change of ownership of the land—hence the transfer of the obligation. How would it be known that that sale of land had taken place?

I think that Catherine Murdoch will answer that.

Everyone is looking at one another. I am not sure whether they have sloping shoulders. The question seems to have landed with Catherine Murdoch.

I am working with Jo O’Hara’s teams to look at how that would work in practice. The intention is that there would be a risk-based approach so that, in areas in which change of ownership is highly unlikely, we might not register from the outset—we might wait to see whether ownership changes—and in areas in which it is thought that ownership will change, we could register straight away. We are looking at how all of that would work in practice to ensure that there is a proportionate use of the enabling power.

On that basis, when might you be able to come up with an idea of how many registrations there might be in a typical year? From what you have said, I suspect that you cannot give the committee an idea of that right now.

I cannot do so right now, but I am working with Jo O’Hara’s teams. On when we might have an answer, we need to wait until we see what shape the bill is in after stage 2.

11:15  

Right. I take it that, whether or not ministers have applied to register a notice, that will have no effect on the legal obligations that derive from the notice, which will pass to the new owner.

The new owner is not bound unless something is registered.

Ah! So if there is no registration of the notice, nothing passes to the new owner.

Yes—nothing passes.

That is an important point that I had not understood.

I will move on, because we could spend a lot of time on that and I do not think that we need to—yet. An issue came up in evidence about who should maintain the register. Sections 39 and 40 say that it will be Registers of Scotland. However, it was suggested in evidence that the Forestry Commission has an effective online list of such notices. Leaving aside the issue of the notices themselves, is the minister minded to consider where the register might be published and how it might be administered? There was an argument, which was not much rebutted when we heard it, that we have something that works, so why bother to change it.

It works in practice. We will come back to the committee on that issue, because those who purchase a forest generally do so because they want to own a forest and therefore they are required to abide by silvicultural good practice and the FC standards, and they accept that and do it. That is just the way it is. Why would somebody buy a forest unless they wanted to carry out that work? For that reason, the problem is theoretical rather than practical. However, it is important that we come back to you on that issue, because that might inform the committee’s approach.

In response to the question, we agree that notices to comply with continuing conditions could be included on an FCS web-based register rather than registered with Registers of Scotland. That is an alternative, and it would provide transparency, but it would not allow for enforcement of the conditions after a change of ownership. If the new owner was not bound in contract to obtemper those conditions, in the absence of title conditions, the new owner would not be under any direct contractual nexus, if you see what I mean. In practice, those conditions would almost certainly be dealt with in the conveyancing between solicitors that is involved in the purchase and sale of forestry, which is not for the non-specialist. However, we are considering the issue. I guess that the risk is that a new owner could claim ignorance of the conditions if they did not appear in the normal solicitors’ searches or in the land obligations section of the land certificate or the burdens section in the sasine register.

If somebody buys a forest and it is not registered and the conditions are not transferred, do the conditions then stay with the person who has sold the forest? That would be my understanding. If that is the case, I suggest that any solicitor who was involved might be not only running for the hills but running for the trees as well.

Exactly. That is why I said that I believe this to be a recognisable and clearly understandable scenario that could arise but, in practice, certainly with commercial forestry, is most unlikely to arise, because the seller’s solicitors would ensure that their client was protected by the transmission to the purchaser of any obligations incumbent on the seller.

I think that Catherine Murdoch has a comment.

I want to bring Stewart Stevenson back in first.

Catherine Murdoch might be able to cover this point as well, which is just a small one that has emerged from what I have heard. Is the power that the bill provides for the minister to apply to register a notice an enduring power? In other words, could that be done at any point after the sale for the next 50 years or whatever, or is it time limited? I do not see how it is time limited.

The conditions will be time limited—

Sorry, but, to be clear, I am not talking about the conditions being time limited; I am talking about the point at which the minister may register a notice.

That is not time limited, but the conditions that are given when Jo O’Hara’s staff give permission to fell will not last for ever. Those conditions are generally about restocking and they are time limited. The minister would not register a notice after the time when the conditions have lapsed.

They would not, but the minister or his officials can apply to register a notice at any point during which the notice remains current, notwithstanding how many changes of ownership there may have been in the period since the notice was issued.

This is becoming more of a legal examination than anything else. We will have to come back to you on those points, unless Barry McCaffrey has anything to add.

I think that the policy intention is that, when someone sees conditions running on into the future and there would be an intervening change of ownership, an effective way of ensuring that the future owner is bound by the conditions is making sure that the notice is registered at a point before the ownership is transferred.

We will move on. It is fair to note that the evidence that we have taken on the current Forestry Commission map-based system—which the cabinet secretary will have picked up on—indicates that it is generally perceived as quite a good system.

On that note, I ask John Mason to ask questions on the final theme.

Perhaps not surprisingly, I want to look at finance. I have three broad questions.

Section 64 says:

“The Scottish Ministers may, for the purposes of or in connection with the carrying out of their functions ... impose charges of such amounts as they consider appropriate.”

We have had some evidence that witnesses are nervous that that gives ministers a blank sheet. Will you clarify how you would use that power and say that there will be not be excessive costs for owners?

I will. There is no intention to change current Government funding arrangements for forestry. The power is designed to underpin the current arrangements, whereby Forest Enterprise Scotland is able to trade goods on the open market, which it did to the tune of £85.4 million in 2016-17. As I understand it, the power is intended to enable flexibility for Forest Enterprise Scotland. Mr Hodge could expand on that, if that is necessary.

As a public corporation, we secure 80 per cent of our revenue stream from trading. I would defer to legal opinion on terminology, but that is critical to our sustainable financial management of the estate. I do not see it as charging as such; it enables us to participate in trading goods and services, as the cabinet secretary said.

My second question is on the financial memorandum, which has costs for three or four years for the changeover period. Some of that relates to IT and some relates to branding and website development, to the tune of £4.25 million over three years. Witnesses had some concerns that that £4.25 million would come out of the normal forestry budget and would therefore mean fewer trees or less of something on the ground, because money would presumably be going into painting vehicles, giving people new uniforms and that kind of thing. Some witnesses requested that that money should be extra funding from the Government, so that the practical work would not be restricted. How would you respond to them?

We have looked carefully at those issues, which are important and on which further detailed work is being done. Let me take you through the components. The first is the estimated IT spend. Members know that IT is a topic that I take a close interest in. Existing Forestry Commission IT is no longer fit for purpose; it needs upgrading anyway. That may not come as a huge surprise to committee members, who I know share my interest in matters IT.

The IT system is no longer fit for purpose and needs upgrading because of the age of the infrastructure and the lack of investment in recent years. The Forestry Commission is already taking action to ensure business continuity and protection against system failure and is moving connectivity from the Forestry Commission network to the Scottish wide area network—SWAN. The Great Britain layer of the Forestry Commission that has provided central services such as IT is in the process of being dismantled as part of the internal changes to the Forestry Commission.

What I am saying is that, even if the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill did not exist, there would need to be considerable spend on IT. How much additional spend is necessary is a legitimate question and we would be happy to provide further information as we go forward.

There will be some costs in relation to branding. Let me be clear and say that I wish for those costs to be kept to a minimum. That is a sensible approach and I have asked for that commonsense approach to be taken. That is clearly understood and that view is widely shared by everyone involved. Those costs will not impact on the delivery of other programmes because the funding comes mainly from reserves that Forest Enterprise Scotland is able to maintain because of its prudent management and as a result of having public corporation status for accounting purposes.

As you will note from the financial memorandum, the range of costs is quite wide. Therefore, there is further work to be done. Those figures are indicative and are not hard estimates—as an accountant, Mr Mason will know that there is a difference. I want to reassure members that it is something in which I take a personal and close interest, as officials are well aware. I will continue to do so to ensure that the costs are minimised. We will be retaining the green livery and badge for the staff, who I think would prefer to maintain that approach.

When Strathclyde Passenger Transport stopped having the trains painted in its own colours, it was agreed that, rather than simply repainting all the trains immediately, the new livery would be brought in only when the trains were due for repainting. Could that be a model, so that you would not have to repaint all the vehicles but could bring them out in the new colours when they needed to be replaced?

In principle, that is the kind of approach that we will take.

That is exactly the sort of approach that we will look to take, particularly if the direction of travel is to evolve the brand, rather than to effect a dramatic change.

As the national forest estate is spread across many places over Scotland, we have around 7,000 items that carry the Forestry Commission name and brand. Vehicles are part of that and anyone who has visited one of our forests for recreation purposes will have seen the various signs and so on. That is why the potential scale of the activity is great. However, there are good opportunities to take an approach that uses the normal replacement cycles for various items. We also need to be mindful of the need to maintain clarity for stakeholders and visitors and ensure that there is no question but that visitors feel welcome and able to engage with us as an organisation.

We are pressed for time, so my final point is that witnesses have raised concerns that there might be less information in the budget about forestry because of the reorganisation. I seek some reassurance—perhaps we can get it in writing if there is no immediate answer—that there will not be any less information available to the committee or the public as a result of the change of process.

I give that assurance. The bill has no impact on funding for forestry in Scotland. Funding will continue to be provided via the Scottish budget and approved and scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament and the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. If I have learned anything, it is that that will mean that more information will be provided, rather than less.

Thank you very much.

That concludes our questions in our final evidence session on the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill. Some interesting issues have been raised and given that your response will help us to determine how we deal with our report and our approach when the bill comes to the committee at stage 2, we would appreciate getting that information soon.

Thank you for all the evidence that you have given us this morning.

11:29 Meeting suspended.  

11:36 On resuming—