Rhaid i chi rak eu serf, everyone. Welcome to the committee's ninth meeting in 2019. Can I ask everyone to please ensure that their mobile phones are on silent? We're going to move straight on to agenda item 1, which is an issue on the European Union withdrawal act. This is a sift of the six Brexit-related instruments, as detailed on the agenda. The Scottish Government has allocated the negative procedure to all six SSIs. Is the committee agreed that it is contempt with the parliamentary procedure allocated to these instruments by the Scottish Government? That's agreed. We'll move straight on to agenda item two, which is subordinate legislation, plant health and forestry regulations. This is an item to consider two affirmative instruments on plant health and forestry regulations as detailed in the agenda. The committee will take evidence from the cabinet secretary for the rural economy. The motion seeking the approval of these affirmative instruments will be considered in turn at items three and four. Members should note that there have been no representations to the committee on these instruments. I'd like to welcome from the Scottish Government sorry, Fogosun, the cabinet secretary for the rural economy, John Spears, the senior policy adviser, Stuart Snap of the EU exit manager for forestry commission Scotland, Lindsay Adams Anderson, the Solister and Elizabeth Rutherford, the Solister for the Scottish Government. Cabinet Secretary, would you like to make a brief opening statement for three minutes please? Yes, thank you, convener, and thank you for making the time to consider the plant health EU exit Scotland amendment ETC regulations 219 and the forestry EU exit Scotland amendment ETC regulations 219. I wish to move motions S5M-15962 and S5M-15963 and ask that the rural economy and connectivity committee recommends that both instruments be approved. The primary purpose of these instruments is to correct the deficiencies in domestic legislation dealing with the protection of plants and plant products, the marketing of forest reproductive material and governance of environmental impact assessment. Those changes are necessary should we leave with the EU without a deal and are aimed at minimising disruption to trade. Currently Scotland operates under a regime that gives effect to the EU plant health forest reproductive material and environmental impact assessment directors implemented in Scotland through various plant health and forestry legislation. The directive set out controls on import and movement of plant and FRM material into and around the EU and for the governance of forestry related developments. Those SSIs update existing implementing legislation ensuring that it can operate effectively if the UK leaves the EU without a deal. The changes in these instruments are largely technical, such as amending the designation of the EU protected zones in the UK to the international designation of pest-free areas, ensuring that EU goods will be accompanied by phytosanitary certificates, not EU plant passports and creation of new offences. To respect devolution and Scottish Government competency, those regulations apply to Scotland only. Similar regulations apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That provides UK-wide arrangements as regards pests and diseases that do not respect borders. Regretfully the plant health regulations were withdrawn and relayed due to a minor technical error. That change was made quickly and there was no disruption to the original instrument schedule date. A robust import regime is key for protecting plant and tree health. Those instruments define the EU as a third country but do not prescribe that phytosanitary checks are performed on all EU imports. The need for physical checks will be assessed according to the risk of the particular import. As the phytosanitary risk will not have changed on day 1, it is considered that those draft regulations are a proportionate risk-based response to maintain the current inspection regime and minimising any disruption to trade in a no-deal exit. Are there any questions from the committee, Stuart? Thank you very much. Just a couple of technical, legal-ish type of questions that the cabinet secretary has advised. They are just about timing. The advice that we have on the plant health regulations suggests that they will come into force prior to 11 pm on 29 March, regardless of when the exit day turns out to be on 29 March. I would like to get on the record that there are no adverse effects if it comes into operation before, even if it is a short period before, exit day. I note what the cabinet secretary said in his introductory remarks, where he says that it defines the EU as a third country. Clearly, if exit day is delayed and the regulations come into force on 29 March, there is therefore a period during which the UK is within the EU but has a piece of legislation defining the EU as a third country. Similarly, on the forestry regulations, the draft shows them coming into force on 1 April 2019. Therefore, there would appear to be a one-hour lacuna between leaving the EU at 11 pm and the regulations coming into force. Again, I just wonder whether there is any legal concern. It is just really an opportunity to put on the record. As I expect, you will say that this is all very interesting but none of it matters. On the other hand, I may hear something different. Cabinet secretary, I must confess that this is a scenario that I have not dwelt on overly much. However, we have our legal advisers here, so I wonder if Lindsay Anderson might be able to help out. Thank you. I should explain, in relation to the forestry instrument, the timing is slightly different because, as you know, the next item relates to implementing the devolution of forestry package. One of the issues that we wanted to make sure that we were taking care of was that, in the event that the Brexit legislation had to come into force on the event of a disorderly exit from the EU, it would nonetheless still mesh with the implementation project, which is why there is a slight difference. However, we anticipate that exit day will be moved by amendment to the enabling powers in the event that 29 March comes and goes and we have not left. The act that we used to make those instruments, the EU withdrawal act at the moment has the definition of exit day and what we anticipate is that that would be amended at Westminster so that it would no longer be the 29 March, it will be another date. The way that all the instruments are drafted, the EU exit SIs are drafted is so that they mesh with that anticipated amendment. Those will come into force on exit day when exit day occurs. At the moment, that is still the 29 March, but clearly that may change. To be clear, they come into effect at 2,300 hours GMT. Does anyone else have any questions? I did not have a question, but, given the response that I have just heard, I thank you. I would like to double check, if legislation is required to correct efficiencies in domestic legislation after exit day. Can you tell me the relevance of whether there is a deal or not? Presumably, the deal-A deal is relevant and specifically related to trading relationships as opposed to jurisdiction of EU legislation. In other words, if there was an exit with a deal, would that therefore mean that this legislation would no longer be required because we would, by default, the existing EU directives be applicable under the terms of a deal, if that makes sense? That makes sense. Those instruments are drafted purely to take care of the possibility of us leaving with no deal. They are, if you like, no deal Brexit SIs. In the event that there is a deal, we anticipate that there will be more legislation passed at Westminster, which would give effect to whatever that deal looks like, if I could predict more than that. Further legislation will be required. The Scottish Government's position has been that a number of SSIs needed to be made in order to mitigate against the worst deficiencies or the most damaging deficiencies that would arise in the event of a no-deal Brexit. There is only deal with no deal. We cannot obviously deal with implementing something that we do not yet know the shape or content of. Are there any other questions? Cabinet Secretary, do you wish to make any closing remarks? No, thank you. We move straight on to agenda item 3. That is the formal consideration of motion S5M-15963 in the name of the cabinet secretary for the rural economy, calling on the committee to recommend that the plant health EU exit Scotland amendment regulations 2019 be approved. Can I just ask cabinet secretary for you to formally move motion S5M-15963? Formally moved. Sorry, did I say the numbers in the wrong order? No. Okay. I think I was right. Okay. So it is formally moved. Are there any other comments from members at this stage? So the question, therefore, is to the committee, is S5M-15963 be agreed to? Are we all agreed? That is agreed. Now we're going to briefly pause the We've done the second one. You've said to do it now. No, we are going to move straight on to agenda item 4 and then pause. I did mention at the beginning that the agenda items had changed and the new agenda was issued yesterday. We can sort that out afterwards, if I may, because the procedure is the same. It's just a different numbering order, so I apologise if there's any confusion and I'll sort out that with the committee afterwards. So we're going to move on straight on to agenda item 4, which is the consideration of motion S5M-15962 in the name of the cabinet secretary for the rural economy, calling on the committee to recommend that the forestry EU exit Scotland amendment regulations 2019 be approved. Can I ask you, cabinet secretary, to formally move that motion and ask if you have any further comments you wish to make? Formally moved. Thank you. Are there any comments from members? So the question therefore to the committee is that motion S5M-15962 be agreed, are we all agreed? We are agreed. Therefore, now is the time for a brief pause to allow the witnesses to change. Okay, we're now going to move back into session and we're going to look at agenda item 5, which is a board-net legislation affirmative forestry and land management regulations. This is consideration of two affirmative instruments on forestry exemptions and forestry land management regulations, as detailed on the agenda. The committee will take evidence from the cabinet secretary for the rural economy. The motion seeks the approval of these affirmative instruments, which will be considered in turn at item 6 and 7. Members should note that there have been no representations to the committee on these instruments. Can I welcome again formally to the committee, Fergus Ewing, the cabinet secretary for the rural economy, Catherine Murdo, the forestry devolution team, Gail Rodgson, the forestry Scottish forestry legislation development officer, Lindsay Anderson, the solicitor and Morvan Davidson, the solicitor for the Scottish Government? Can I ask the cabinet secretary to make a brief opening statement, cabinet secretary? Thank you, Fina, for inviting me to this consideration of two affirmative forestry instruments and motions, S5M-15923 and 15922, which ask that this committee recommends the regulations be approved. The forestry exemptions Scotland regulations 219 and the Forestry and Land Management Scotland Act 2018, consequential amendments regulations 219, are the two affirmative instruments in a package of instruments that bring into force the Forestry and Land Management Scotland Act 2018. The act completes the devolution of forestry to Scotland, transferring to Scottish ministers responsibility for the functions currently carried out by the Forestry Commission relating to Scotland. That will happen on 1 April, and that is why those instruments come into force on that date. The package of secondary legislation as a whole puts in place supporting detail on how forestry will be regulated from April onwards and deals with transfer of property and liabilities from the forestry to Scottish ministers. The affirmative instruments convener before you today first set out the felling activities that can be carried out without a specific felling permission from the regulator, generally referred to as exemptions, and second make the amendments required to primary legislation in consequence of the 2018 act. Those are technical in nature, but principally aim to maintain the status quo as we commence the act. We have taken a consultative approach to developing these instruments and a pragmatic approach to transition from one regime to the other. The aim is to ensure a smooth transition for the sector, by for example basing the exemptions for the future on those that are currently in place. We have made changes where they were necessary due to changes in the primary legislation or where there was widespread support for an improvement. I hope that that is a helpful summary and I am happy with my officials to answer your questions. I am looking around the committee if there are any questions. I have one Cabinet Secretary for U just on felling, and it is just a clarification of the point. Before I do, I would like to refer you and the members of the committee to my register of interest in a farming partnership, which does have some trees on it. I am looking specifically under felling section 4, section J, which covers elm trees and Dutch elm disease. Once the greater part of the crown of the tree is dead, that allows you to fell it. I wonder why, perhaps you can clarify to me, Cabinet Secretary, why it has just been decided to do Dutch elm disease and not other diseases such as ash dieback that you will know all about? I have some knowledge about these, and I did ask the very same question to my officials. The reason is that the exemption respect of Dutch elm disease currently exists. As I set out in my opening remarks, we wanted our main approach was continuity and to make change only where there was a demonstrable need for change, either through the act or where there would be clear improvements. The exemption currently exists and no firm arguments have been presented to change it. Since our intention was to maintain the status quo unless there was a straw argument to do otherwise, we set out simply to maintain the exemption, as is convener. I do not know if officials have anything further to add in respect of this, or indeed perhaps if there is any useful additional information that our stakeholders made in respect of the consultation. Gail, that would be helpful. We got very few comments through any stakeholder engagement or consultation about that aspect, so there were no real reasons given to remove the exemption. If we were to exempt other diseases, we would need to list them in the regulations just now, and there are no other diseases—or police species—that we would want an exemption for. Other diseases such as Fautothra, Llymorum or Calara-Flaxania, which attacks ash, could be dealt with through plant health legislation, rather than a full-scale exemption than regulations. I understand that. It is just the concern, and the cabinet secretary will know this from driving around in the highlands, the amount of Dutch-elm disease that is relevant on the edge of roads and such like in the danger to the public of trees falling. That could happen in ash, and I just want to make sure that sufficient thought should ash die back become a problem, that there will not be problems with falling those trees. I want to understand that within the regulation. There is an exemption for trees that are completely dead, so if there is a completely dead ash tree, that could be felled under the exemption. Okay. Thank you for that clarity on that. Does anyone else have any questions? Cabinet Secretary, do you wish to make any closing remarks? No, thank you. Thank you. We are going to therefore move on to agenda item 6, which is subordinate legislation for industry exemptions. This is the sixth agenda item, and it is a formal consideration of motion S5M-15923 in the name of the cabinet secretary for the royal economy, calling on the committee to recommend that the forestry exemption Scotland regulations 2019 be approved. Can I invite you, cabinet secretary, for the royal economy to move motion S5M-15923 and ask if you have any further comments that you wish to make? So moved, and no I don't. Thank you. Are there any comments from the members? Members. So therefore the question is, is motion S5M-15923 be agreed? Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Therefore I'd like to move on to agenda item 7, which is subordinate legislation, which is the formal consideration of S5M-15922 in the name of the cabinet secretary for the royal economy, calling on the committee to recommend that forestry land management Scotland Act 2018 consequential amendment regulations 2019 be approved. Can I invite the cabinet secretary to move motion S5M-15922 and ask if you have any further comments to make? So moved, and no comments other than to say that all those hours spent preparing for this session appear to have been in vain, but that is life. I'm sure the committee welcomes your diligence in preparing for coming before them. So the question therefore is a committee is to ask if motion S5M-15922 be agreed? Are we all agreed? Thank you. Then I'm just going to take a brief pause to allow the cabinet secretary and thank you and your officials for attending the meeting and the hours of preparation that you've put in cabinet secretary and say if you'd like to leave now we are going to move on to agenda item 8. Thank you cabinet secretary. So agenda item 8 for the committee is a consideration of eight negative instruments as detailed on the agenda. No motions to annul or representations have been received in relation to these instruments. Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to these instruments? That's agreed. So we're now going to move on to agenda item 9 which is the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018. We have received a consent notification in relation to one UK SI as detailed on the agenda. It covers the common fisheries policy, fishing opportunities and discard plans. This instrument is being laid in the UK Parliament in relation to the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018. Are there any comments that anyone wishes to make? The letter that you've received, convener, is that it just makes the observation that we've yet to have sight of the final version of the regulations as it's not available in the public domain at this stage. I just wonder if there's any update on that, perhaps the clerks have gotten it. I don't doubt anybody's good faith that this is where the two Governments are working closely together and I'm quite content at that level. However, it's appropriate to put on the record that I have a residual concern about what we're dealing with that's not yet available to us. I hope that that is made available in the public domain in very early course. One of the options is therefore to write to the Scottish Government to confirm its consent. It's content for the consent, but it's asking them to notify us as soon as that missing peter of the jigsaw is received so that we can have a look at that. Is that the way that the committee would wish to go forward? Are you agreed to write to the Scottish Government to confirm its content subject to receiving the further information as requested? I do forgive me, convener. I wasn't necessarily suggesting that we make it subject. No, no, no. Just for clarity. I was about to say that we would consent to the instrument but ask for that information to be provided subsequent to the meeting. Are we agreed? We are agreed. I think that that concludes our business for this morning. I'm going to formally close the meeting and I'm going to ask committee just to stay back for a moment afterwards. Thank you.