The next item of business is a debate on motion 8.677, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on stage 1 of the Forestry and Land Management Scotland Bill. I would ask all members who wish to speak in this debate to press their request to speak buttons now and I call on Fergus Ewing to speak to you and move the motion. Yes, thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm delighted to open the stage 1 debate on the Forestry and Land Management Scotland Bill. The framework of this bill will create is key to this Government's wider ambitions for forestry to play its role in creating a sustainable, productive and thriving rural economy. The sector as a whole has already worth nearly £1,000 million a year and supports 25,000 full-time equivalent jobs. The bill's measures will also support delivery of planting targets as part of our climate change ambitions and will help us achieve wider social and environmental outcomes. Presiding Officer, forestry is already broadly devolved. Ministers set Scottish Forestry strategy and policy and provide funding via the Scottish budget. The bill will complete the devolution of forestry. It will transfer the functions of the forestry commissioners insofar as they relate to Scotland to Scottish ministers and establish a modern legislative framework for the regulation, support and development of forestry in Scotland. The current legislation, the Forestry Act 1967, has served the sector well, but it was drafted for post-war circumstances and, in turn, is based on 1919 legislation. It's time for forestry legislation in Scotland to catch up with modern forestry practice. As well as seeking to deliver improved accountability, transparency and policy alignment, the bill places duties on ministers to promote sustainable forestry management, accepted good practice on managing forestry and to set out a long-term strategic vision for the sector via a new Scottish forestry strategy. The bill also enables more effective use of Scotland's publicly owned land. Ministers will be responsible for managing the national forest estate to contribute to multiple outcomes. Ministers will be able to reach voluntary agreements with others to manage land on their behalf. I welcome the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee's report, which recommends that the Parliament supports the general principles of the bill. I thank members of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and other parliamentary committees for their careful and thorough scrutiny at stage 1. That was, of course, made possible by the thoughtful contributions from many stakeholders who have engaged with the bill process, some of whom I met immediately before coming down to this chamber, which may have made me somewhat late, in which case, of course, I humbly apologise. All of this has been evident in the broad consensus achieved to date, and I hope that that continues through the bill process. That said, the committee makes a number of helpful recommendations and observations in its report. I issued a response to that report on 3 November. I am very much looking forward to hearing and listening carefully to all the contributions across the chamber in this debate today ahead of stage 2. The requirement for ministers to prepare and publish a forestry strategy has been widely welcomed. The committee makes recommendations about how that strategy aligns with wider duties and policies, consultation arrangements and review periods, and I will consider all of those recommendations carefully. I acknowledge the views expressed by the committee on the topic of compulsory purchase of land. I give my assurance that I am listening and will consider the issues fully. On completing devolution of forestry, I acknowledge that there remains concern about the new organisational structures for forestry. I want to assure members that we are taking a considered approach and will continue to engage with staff and stakeholders as the work to establish the new forestry agency that is forestry in land Scotland and the dedicated forestry division progresses. As recommended in the committee's report, I will provide a comprehensive statement in due course setting out how we will manage and administer forestry in the future. Of course, some aspects of forestry by their nature require co-ordination and co-operation across boundaries and borders. Those include the commissioning and delivery of forestry research and science, protection of trees from pests and diseases and agreement on codes and standards for the sustainable management of our forests. I am pleased to announce today that I have agreed with my UK and Welsh counterparts new arrangements for sharing responsibility on those matters. One Government will co-ordinate delivery of each function on behalf of all three. In future, the Scottish Government will take the lead on the UK forestry standard, the woodland carbon code and on forestry economics. I welcome the announcement and the role that the Scottish Government will play in leading on those key issues. Can the cabinet secretary advise on the arrangements that are being made on the future of the forestry research agency and which plays a key role across the UK on forestry science and expertise? It is a good question. I am aware that research is carried out in various parts of the United Kingdom on forestry. That is a good thing. The forest research agency will remain intact as an agency of the forestry commissioners, ensuring that expertise in forestry science statistics and inventory is maintained. To enable that to happen, there will be new governance, commissioning and funding arrangements agreed between the UK and the devolved administrations. I am very grateful to my counterparts in the UK that have agreed in principle that those arrangements should take place, and I think that they are sensible and to be welcomed. The bill and its measures will help to underpin our shared national endeavour to expand Scotland's woodland area to secure future timber supply. Growing more timber helps to contribute to our wider economic ambitions, growing jobs and securing and creating business opportunities in the sawmill and timber processing sectors. The timber development programme is also helping to support the development of innovative wood products and to promote greater use of Scottish wood in everything from offices to housing. To help to increase the pace and scale of planting, we have increased grant funding for woodland creation by £4 million and provided more attractive grant rates for native woodlands in Highland. Mindful of the impact of timber extraction on communities and the wider environments, we have committed £7.85 million under the strategic timber transport fund to improve timber transport infrastructure. Our fundamental commitment to maintaining the national forest estate sits at the heart of our approach. We are committed to restoring 500 hectares of ancient woodland and establishing 650 hectares of new woodland. That will include work with partners to identify areas of vacant and derelict land for restoration. We want to sustain the productive capacity of the estate—that is 3 million cubic metres of timber each year—but the estate delivers far more than timber, playing a key role in tourism and leisure all across the country. Each year, the estate welcomes 9 million visits. Our tourism partnership for its holidays goes from strength to strength and the £11.3 million cabin investment at Glen Tress is about to be submitted for planning consent. Local communities are also key to our ambitions. Currently, more than 40 local partnerships are involved, including in tourism activity at Lagan, community allotments at Lesmahego and Fort William and eco-tourism on Mull and Sky. Over the past 10 years, 13,000 acres of the national forest estate have been transferred to community ownership. That includes land at Abriachan, Arcaig and Tynabruch. Through the community asset transfer scheme, we are aiming to transfer a further 700 acres this year with the first successful transfer that was announced just last week on Sky. In closing, I have set out the purpose behind the bill. I have highlighted its key objectives. I have also sought to place the bill and its measures in the wider context of policy and approach to forestry and woodland. I believe that we can move forward with the bill's general principles, and I am keen that we continue to maintain our consensual approach to modernising the legislative framework for forestry. I will therefore continue to work across this chamber to that end to ensure that the bill becomes law, enabling Scotland's forests and woodland to make its full and vibrant contribution to our economy, our environment and the people of Scotland. I move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Forestry and Land Management Scotland Bill. On behalf of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, convener's seven minutes are thereabouts a generous seven minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As you say, I am speaking this afternoon in my capacity as convener of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Sadly, as times are a bit limited, I cannot cover all of our report, but I do note the cabinet secretary's detailed response received last Friday two working days before this debate. At the outset, I would like to make it clear that during the evidence sessions there was a clear message. That message was a recognition of the professional way the staff of the Forestry Commission and Forest Enterprise undertook their work. The committee feels that it is very important that their skills are maintained and not lost. I note that the cabinet secretary in his response agrees. We have heard the Scottish Government proposes to split the functions of the Forestry Commission between a Government division and a new land management agency. While that is outwith the scope of the bill, we heard wide-ranging concerns from stakeholders on that. The Scottish Government should act to provide further reassurance to those stakeholders and also to the committee. The Government needs to articulate how it will manage its forestry responsibilities with much more detail on the creation of the proposed land management agency and how it will work within the forestry division. The Scottish Government should also set out how forestry-related skills and expertise will be retained and developed under this new structure. The committee feels that a clear positive message should be sent to the industry and to forestry staff about the importance of the industry as a whole. We believe that a simple way of doing that is by designating the head of the proposed new forestry division as the chief forester. I note that the Government will consider that further and we welcome that. Turning to the forest strategy, we acknowledge the importance of that. We recognise that timber production is vital to the rural economy. Forestry is a long-term industry that requires a secure future. It needs a strategy that allows its producers, millers and merchants to be able to invest in the expansion of their industry. The committee therefore feels that the strategy must have the following. First of all, an overarching and high-level objective statement on the face of the bill. That should also include how forestry issues such as land use, planning and community employment, climate change and biodiversity will interact as they clearly need to. A commitment to refivially reviews of the strategy and a commitment to refresh the strategy every 10 years. Those will need amendments to the bill, and we welcome the Government's acknowledgement of that in the response that the committee gave. The committee believes that having listened to stakeholders, we also need some clarity when it comes to definitions. In our report, we asked for definitions in the bill of terms such as sustainable forest management and sustainable development. We therefore welcome a Government commitment to include definitions of those terms within the strategy document. Tonings of forestry health and research, as the cabinet secretary has said, tree-related diseases do not respect national boundaries, nor should forestry research. The committee recommended that the Government bring forward an amendment to the bill to strengthen provisions relating to tree health and other forestry research from a power to a duty. We also recommended a framework agreement for a united UK approach to forestry research and tree health should be agreed and be in place before the relevant sections of the bill come into force. Therefore, I am delighted that we have heard an announcement today from the cabinet secretary that that will take that into account. I would like to turn to an area that caused the committee some difficulties. When it came to the acquisition and compulsory purchase of land for forestry reasons, we heard that this was a power that had been in the 1967 act but had never actually been used. The committee, after considerable deliberation, accepted the need for the retention of compulsory purchase powers to unlock the potential of forestry land. However, the majority of the committee felt that the Government had not provided sufficient justification for its proposed extension of compulsory purchase powers to cover sustainable development. The majority of the committee therefore called for the bill to be amended and the Government to remove that provision. We note that the Government has said that they will consider that further, and the cabinet secretary said today that he is listening to the appeals on this subject, and we urge him to do so. On the issue of land disposal and forest rationalisation, we recommended that, due to the long-term strategic nature of forestry, a commitment to reinvest capital from land sales into capital assets should be set out in the forestry strategy to ensure security and continuity over time. Although the Government acknowledged our views, it has not offered an undertaking in its response to those views. The committee also questioned the definition of community bodies used in the bill and whether there needs to be a particular section on community bodies. When section 17 of the bill allows Scottish ministers to sell least or gift land to anyone, the committee called on the Scottish Government to explore the issue further and to determine whether the sections on community bodies are required. On felling, we agreed that a more appropriate definition of felling was required. The committee noted that the Scottish Government's reassurance that the felling directions contained in the bill would not be used to force private forestry owners to fell against their wishes. The committee will also have the view that the registration system for forestry operations should be proportionate and cost and resource effective. On finance, the committee seeks reassurance from the Government that there will be no reduction in the financial transparency of the new forestry organisation. On cost, we recognise the strength of the current Forestry Commission band. We recommended that if rebounding excise must occur that costs be kept to a minimum and that this might be achieved by a rolling approach, for example, only changing branding where vehicles or equipment is replaced. The committee also acknowledged that the current FC Forestry Commission IT system is not fit for purpose and will require an upgrade. While naturally, there were some concerns about Government-procured IT systems, we look forward to seeing further detail from the Scottish Government on the exact costings of that. In conclusion, there is much raised in the report, and the committee looks forward to seeing positive action to all our recommendations. Subject to the points that we have raised in the report, the committee recommends to the Parliament that the Parliament agrees the general principles of the bill. I am glad to speak in the debate today. As Forestry is a vital part of her rural economy, Scotland's forestry sector currently contributes some £954 million a year to the economy and supports 26,000 jobs. However, I believe that we can do better. Planting more trees will secure the long-term supply of productive timber, create new jobs in rural areas, help Scotland to meet vital climate change targets, and reduce timber imports. Given that the UK is the second largest importer of timber in the world, I cannot stress enough that we must do better. That is why I welcome a newly increased planting target, which will rise to 15,000 hectares by 2025. I believe that that target is achievable, but we have seen failings in the Scottish Government's part before, as they have missed their 10,000 hectare targets every year since 2001. That 2025 aim will not be met unless the process of applying to plant trees is easier, less expensive and that forestry bell is fit for purpose. It is important that the timber we grow is largely the productive timber that our sawmills and the economy needs, as too much of what has been planted recently has been a meanity woodland. John Mason, I thank the member for giving way. Would you also accept that there has maybe been too hard a line between farming land and forestry land, and perhaps going forward, it needs to be easier to move land between one and the other? Peter Chapman, I certainly agree that there is a debate to be had. In the past, you are either a farmer or a forester and the two did not go together, and I think that we need to try and break down some of these barriers, except much of what has been said. Given that I have now spoken about agriculture and I need to declare an interest, I did not think that I was going to stray into that, but here we are, if we have already done it. I thought that we were on trees, Presiding Officer, but there we go. Belt and breezes is never a bad idea in here, Mr Chapman. Thank you. Where are we? I have lost my place now. It is essential that we work together in the UK to ensure the health of our trees, as well, and we need to co-operate to stamp out disease such as the spread of larch disease, which I have already spoken about previously. The committee recommends that the Scottish Government should bring forward an amendment to the bill to strengthen cross-border provisions relating to tree health and research, and we would strengthen that from a power to a duty. There must also be no reduction in this Parliament's ability to scrutinise the Scottish Government's performance in meeting targets following the reorganisation. A regular review of progress is important, and we expect the Scottish Government to report back to this Parliament on progress made towards meeting the expansion timetable. The committee recommends that the forest strategy is reviewed every five years and refreshed every 10 years. The committee accepts that the current powers of compulsory purchase in the 1967 act should remain in place for use in only the most exceptional of cases, but the case has not been made for any expansion in these powers. A majority of the committee believes that it would be wrong for ministers to seek new powers to compulsory purchase land for sustainable development. That poorly defined term would hand huge powers to ministers, which we do not believe is justifiable. At the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee evidence session on 7 June, the Scottish Government's own Forestry and Land Management Bill team failed to provide clarity on sustainable development in the event that a compulsory purchase order was issued. We have seen vague definitions being used for crucial aspects of legislation before that create ambiguity and unintentionally raise concerns among stakeholders. We need clear definitions in the forest strategy of what sustainable forest management and sustainable development mean. I welcome the Government's willingness to look at providing more clarity here. The committee welcomes the Scottish Government's commitment to bring forward an amendment at stage 2 to provide a more appropriate definition of felling. The committee notes that the Scottish Government's reassurance that the felling directions contained in the bill would not be used to force private forestry owners to fell against their wishes. The system for registering notices to comply must also always be simple and cost-effective. I hope that the reorganisation will be achieved without the taxpayer funding unnecessary and expensive rebranding. I fully support the committee's recommendation that this be rolled out only as vehicles and equipment needs to be replaced. It is vital, too, that estimates of the cost of the new IT system are provided to Parliament at the earliest opportunity. This Government has already presided over the cap IT fiasco, the effects of which are still impacting on rural communities. What safeguards will be in place to ensure that there is not another debacle? We welcome this bill, but it still requires some more work for it to be fully fit for purpose. We all want to see more of forestrysion and skilled jobs created in our remote and rural communities. Let's work together to ensure that this becomes a reality and we finally see the renaissance of Scotland's woods and forests for the benefit of generations to come. Thank you very much, Mr Chapman. I call on Rhoda Grant to open for Labour. Ms Grant, please. The legislation is required to take account of the devolution of the forestry commission. However, the status of the new organisation was not a foregone conclusion. The Scottish Government decided not to continue with the commission but to take the functions in-house, and while the bill does not deal with it, there are a significant number of concerns surrounding that decision and whether it is the best way forward. I am glad that the cabinet secretary said in his opening remarks that he has given this further consideration, because there were concerns regarding the loss of expertise and the potential that a new organisation would be staffed by career civil servants as opposed to foresters. If he continues with his proposals, it would be useful to look at how foresters could be in the positions of influence in the new body. There were a number of suggestions made to the committee, for instance the creation of a post of chief forester along the lines of chief medical officer that might provide some comfort. The role would be that of an adviser to government, but with the freedom to fight the corner of forestry within government. There were also calls for an advisory group representing the industry and communities to be set up in order to ensure that the new organisation stayed close to the forestry sector and the communities that it operated in. That could be a national committee, but with regional fora that could take advice from those on the ground. The new organisation must also have an eye to social and economic impacts of forestry. It needs to be responsive to communities and the needs of the environment, as well as ensuring that forestry flourishes. All those suggestions are working towards keeping the organisation as close to those that serve as possible in industry and communities. The power of the bill that was most contentious in the committee was the powers of compulsory purchase for sustainable development. The evidence was clear that it was extremely difficult to exercise compulsory purchase and that the whole process required review. However, it was also acknowledged that the possession of those powers would be an incentive for landowners to act in the interests of sustainable development. Because of that, I believe that those powers should remain in the bill. At the moment, there are forests that are landlocked and it is impossible to harvest the trees. Some of those have been taken over by local communities that are able to utilise the timber locally, but that does not meet the national need for timber. If we are to substantially increase forestry, we must find ways in which land suitable for planting can be made more accessible. That land tends to be in remote areas where roads are few and where there are roads, they are unable to take the strain of heavy traffic when it comes to harvesting. It might be that landowners should work together to set a network of forest tracks through adjacent forestry or land that would enable harvesting. If a landowner was obstructive to that, it could be that the compulsory purchase powers might bring them to the negotiating table. There were other concerns about definitions in the bill. The definition of sustainable development is well used and recognised in other legislation. However, there were concerns regarding the definition of sustainable forest management, which is new to the bill. The Scottish Government made it clear that the definition might change over time and therefore it should not be put on the face of the bill because that would be restrictive. Other options suggested in order to provide clarity were to include a working definition in the forestry strategy. My main concern with that would be that it could impact on the definition of sustainable development and that would be detrimental. It would be preferable that the Scottish Government in the strategy highlight the direction of travel to attain sustainable forest management and therefore deal with any confusion that there may be. There are specific provisions in the bill to delegate powers to communities. We received evidence that those powers might not be necessary, given that the Scottish Government also included the power to delegate their functions to any person or organisation. It is not clear why the additional section on communities is required. Does the Scottish Government envisage circumstances in which communities would require additional powers, and if so, what are they? There was also confusion in the bill regarding different types of land. The terms used are forestry land and other land, and it was not clear why land held under the bill was defined in this way. Is all land held under the bill to be used for the purpose of sustainable management of forestry, and if not, for what purposes it held? There is obviously unplanted land that is owned to promote forestry, for example, for fire breaks, for aesthetic purposes and for environmental reasons. Is that defined as forest land because it is held for the specific reason of supporting forestry, or will it be termed other land? We need clarity on those categories of land and order that there is no confusion. There was a unanimous call that the strategy should be widely consulted on and to have greater parliamentary scrutiny, given that so much detail will be in the strategy rather than the bill. We need to get it right. Is it possible that a committee of the Parliament could be charged with taking evidence to scrutinise the strategy and report back to the Scottish Government? We welcome the bill and the Cabinet Secretary's agreement to look again at the organisational concerns raised. I hope that he will also take on board the positive suggestions that we have made to improve the legislation. We support the general principles of the bill. Thank you, Ms Grant. Moving to the open debate, speeches are six minutes, but there is extra time for interventions, which I would encourage. I call Stuart Stevenson to be followed by John Scott. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. The cabinet secretary took us back to the origins of the Forestry commission in the 1919 bill. I want to take us 400 years further back, because forestry is, of course, a strategic material. When the Great Michael was built by James IV, 10 ft thick with Scottish Oaks, all the trees of fife were cleared to build it. Then, as now, we had to import further wood from France and from the Baltic States and from forests across Scotland to build it. Wood has been a strategic material for a very long time indeed. Henry VIII, when he saw what James IV had done, concluded that he would build a boat even bigger than the Great Michael, which had 1,000 tonnes, was the biggest boat in the world that was afloat and he built something even bigger. Flawn cut short the ambitions for the use of the Great Michael. In 1919, of course, we were responding to the strategic imperative to have wood for putting in the trenches of the First World War, where it was clear that it was inadequate wood. It was recognised as an important strategic part of military operations. As Peter Chapman reminded us, it is of economic value. It may be but 1 per cent of our gross domestic product, but where that 1 per cent lies, it is very important to communities who look after our forests, who plant them and sustain them, but equally to the forest sawmills that depend on a predictable long-term access to wood. As in the 1500s, so it is in the 200s. Indeed, forestry is a very personal thing for many people. One of my late council colleagues, a good friend, councillor Mitchell Burnett, who knew he was dying from a carcinoma, held on long enough to ensure that he got permission from Aberdeenshire council for his grave to be on the edge of the forest that he was bequeathing to his daughter. Forestry is that kind of long-term business that we have to protect the interests of. Sustainable forest management has come up several times already. It is important that whatever we do with land is sustainable. The debate around what sustainable means will mean that it means slightly different things in a slightly different context. That is why it is proper that it should be not on the face of the bill, but that it should be expressed clearly and unambiguously elsewhere, so that we can see what it means and discuss and debate and challenge what it might mean. The committee divided on the matter of compulsory purchase. Indeed, it is worth reminding Parliament that the committees of this Parliament are rather freer from the strictures of the whip system than perhaps other parts of our operation. Committees, when they are working well, seek to look at the evidence before them in an objective fashion, and the individuals in committees come to conclusions. The SNP group, because it is not a group in the committee, divided two on one side of the argument and two on the other side of the argument. Fulton MacGregor and I joined Rhoda Grant and John Finnie in suggesting that the extension of the compulsory purchase orders that we might never see used in a minute—I will come in a second—which the existence of takes people to decisions a little bit faster. Mr Mountain may come to a different view. Edward Mountain. No, that is not a political point. That is just a point that I think that there may be a member of the committee within your group that you have ignored. I think that there are five people in your group, not four. However, as you were at the meeting, I am sure that you will be able to comment on that on reflection. Stuart Stevenson, unlike you, to make a factual error. No, no, no, Presiding Officer. I am constantly told by colleagues and even by friends that I am a larger-than-life character and I count for one and a half. Thus, when I add Fulton MacGregor to me, that is two and a half out of five. Anyway, no, no, I jest. Of course, Edward Mountain, as our ever-diligent convener, is, of course, correct. As a mere mathematician, I am arithmetically challenged by his intervention. I accept the challenge. It is entirely correct. I welcome the attention to felling definitions. I think that it is certainly important that we get that right. Of course, it is worth reminding ourselves that nature fells woods as well. As it happens where my wife and I have stayed for the last 14 years, we are surrounded in three sides by about 40 hectares of forest that appears to have been all but abandoned and nature is fizzily felling what appears to me to be a mature forest. Therefore, it is important that we see that some of that is addressed as we take the bill forward. Coming to the conclusion, Presiding Officer, I was delighted to hear the cabinet secretary refer to a brechen. I fond memories of a brechen and I visited there when I think I was probably about three or four years old in an old American ex-army jeep up to Claude McLean's croft at the top of a brechen. It is interesting. At that time, it was a very primitive place indeed—very primitive—and I think that the community that is having the opportunity to take some control over its own destiny will be a way in which it has fundamentally changed since I visited a brechen in the late 1940s. The important thing in the bill, which I welcome and others have mixed views on, is the separation between policy and operation. That leads us to somewhere that is going to be a clearer way of taking things forward. It was my delight to have previously been minister responsible for the Forestry Commission and, in particular, to have seen the highly automated sawmill in the cabinet secretary's constituency at Nern, which absolutely illustrates how the industry is a high-tech industry of economic and environmental importance to Scotland. I support what is proposed, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Severson. I call John Scott, who is followed by John Mason. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer and owner of land on which there is some woodland? I begin by welcoming the stage 1 debate on the Forestry and Land Management Scotland bill, which transfers the powers and duties of the Forestry Commission in Scotland to Scottish ministers. Under devolution in the 1998 Scotland Act, the bill has been on the cards for some time and will wind up the Forestry Commission as a UK cross-border authority and, in addition to transferring powers and duties to Scottish ministers, it will also transfer responsibilities and liabilities for staff as well as property. While it will also repeal the 1967 act in Scotland, it will, however, underpin new cross-border arrangements as well as create new organisational structures for forestry land management in Scotland. There is a lot to do, and it will be very important to get the bill right. Given what a strategic resource our timber has become and is in Scotland, it will support around 26,000 jobs and close to £1 billion of GVA annually. Scottish Conservatives welcome much of the bill, but in the time available it is important to focus on what needs to be improved on and where we believe change is necessary. Firstly, as Peter Chapman has said, we are concerned about the lack of clarity over key definitions, particularly the definition of forestry land, sustainable forest management, sustainable development, community body and filling. I note and welcome that Fergus Ewing has stated in his letter that he will make amendments at stage 2 to clarify at least some of those definitions. In addition, we have concerns about the expansion of compulsory purchase powers for sustainable development. In my view, the case has not been made by the Government for expansion of those powers. Given that the powers in the 1967 act have lain unused for 50 years, it is less than obvious to me at any rate why those compulsory powers need to be enhanced beyond the provision in the 1967 act. No thank you. We also have concerns about community bodies and community empowerment. What constitutes a community body and why there are so many definitions in different bills as to what constitutes a community body? Unlike the 1967 act, the bill is not as well-structured or easily understood, with too much definition of key terms and policy intent left to subsequent ministerial intervention. The style of creating vague and ambivalent legislation is regrettably becoming one of the defining features of SNP Government in recent years. I cite as evidence the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015, the Land Reform Scotland Act 2016 and the Burials of Cremation Scotland Act 2016 to name but three. It is simply not good enough for poorly thought out, poorly drafted and defined and poorly constructed legislation to be laid before Parliament on a regular basis, and it runs the risk of bringing the Parliament into dispute. Further, we have concerns about the development of yet another new IT system, given the unanswered governance questions about the failed cap payment delivery system, as well as the NHS 24 IT system and the failed I6 system for Police Scotland. We also have concerns about the reinvestment of funds generated from selling off the forestry estate, and we feel that it is important that such income be reinvested into the purchasing of land for further afforestation. Also, while we support the modest expansion of the planting targets, it is vital that provision is made as well for the future harvesting of this crop on new land in terms of the road infrastructure already under enormous pressure in Ayrshire and South West Scotland and indeed elsewhere, as Rhoda Grant mentioned. Also, Cabinet Secretary, industry stakeholders and I would like more information on how cross-border arrangements will be managed after the passage of the bill into law, and that information would be welcomed at the earliest possible opportunity, although I think that the minister and the cabinet secretary did make an announcement in that regard today, which I am pleased to hear. Another concern highlighted by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee is that it is concerned that the legislation has been introduced in the absence of a full consultation on the development of the Scottish Government policy regarding exemption from the offence of illegal filling, and the DPLR Committee has recommended that the Scottish Government bring forward amendments to the bill at stage 2, which will make provision for exemption from the offence of unauthorised filling. I welcome that there is a consultation now under way in that regard. However, it should have been done before. Further, the DPLR Committee also has concerns about the need for clarity on the forestry strategy on how the relevant provisions of the Forestry and Land Management Bill, taken in conjunction with the Community Empowerment Act 2015, will apply to forestry and sustainable development in the future. Finally, I congratulate the Forestry Commission on its enormous success in the post-war delivery of the timber resource that we have in the United Kingdom. I note the long-term approach that the Forestry Commission has been able to take and have taken. I hope that the Scottish Government will put in place similar structures that will be able to develop a similar long-term developmental view and build on the asset that we currently enjoy. The Forestry Commission brand is one of the most successful and trusted brands in the United Kingdom, and I hope that we in Scotland will be able to continue that good work as we go our own way here in Scotland following the passing of the bill. John Mason, who is followed by Claudia Beamish. I think that it would be true to say that all of us on the committee and, in fact, the vast majority of the people of Scotland consider that forestry is a very good thing and should certainly be encouraged. We may not have meant our planting targets in recent years, but, as the report says, the details of targets and how we get there need to be in the strategy rather than in the bill itself. The committee has visited a number of forests and forestry-related sites, such as the new forestry pier on Mall, and I have to say that it is extremely good to see an investment in an asset like that. We have heard evidence in a wider range of issues than the bill itself includes, but that was very useful in emphasising points like we need to take a long-term view of forestry, planting types of trees needs to be more mixed than it used to be in the past, the processing industry needs stability and certainly long-term planning, and there has perhaps in the past been too hard and fast a line between what land was for forestry and what land was for farming and maybe going forward there could be room for interaction and perhaps overlap, making it easier for land users to change the use and even perhaps to have mixed use in some places which would benefit both the tree planting targets and animals, for example, by giving them shelter in bad weather. On the bill itself, the aim has been to complete devolution of forestry, and we heard that this was broadly welcomed. With so much land in Scotland actually or potentially consisting of forests, it certainly makes sense that this is the sector that we should be responsible for here in Scotland. We spent a fair bit of time on definitions, for example, the sustainable forest management and what that meant and whether it should actually be in the bill. As it says at paragraph 60 of our report, we recommend that the definition should be in the strategy and the same applies to the term sustainable development, which is used in relation to other land. I have to say that I myself like a bill or an act to have as much of the main content in it as possible. However, I also agree that we do not want to have too much detail in primary legislation where it can become outdated and takes a fair bit of time to change. Having those definitions in the forestry strategy seems a pretty reasonable position that we can all agree on. It quickly became clear to the committee that the definition of felling as being intentionally killing a tree needed improvement, and I am glad to see that the Government agrees with that. On compulsory purchase, it is perhaps not surprising that there were a variety of views on the REC committee. Some of our more right-wing land-owning members could perhaps see no place at all for compulsory purchase and felt that the rich and powerful should be allowed to do whatever they wanted. At the other end of the spectrum, some might like to see more public intervention on how our land is used. However, the majority of the committee felt that there was a place for compulsory purchase broadly in line with the previous arrangements. John Scott did not let me intervene, but he made the point that compulsory purchase legislation has not been used in the past and, certainly on the surface, that is the case. However, the reality is that we do not know how effective it has been because it has always been there in the background when negotiations were taking place. Mr Scott. Is this an intervention, unig? You did not declare what it was, Mr Scott? Well, indeed. Thank you for allowing me to make an intervention and thank you for taking the intervention, sir. It is not on the surface. It is a matter of fact that it has not been used. John Mason. It has not been used in the sense that somebody has not gone to court and gone through the process of compulsory purchase. However, if I am sitting down with you talking about negotiating about our land, the fact that I have got in the background the power of compulsory purchase can have an impact on the negotiations that we are taking part in. That came up clearly at committee and nobody can prove that that did or did not have an effect, but I think that we all accepted that it probably did have an effect. Moving on to finance, there were a few issues around finance and the financial memorandum that I would like to touch on. Firstly, a Scottish Environment Link pointed out that, as FCS and FES have separate budgets at present, we see two figures in the Scottish budget each year, and those might be reduced to one in future. However, I think that we have now had reassurance from the Government that it would be their intention to provide more information rather than less after the reorganisation. Obviously, it will be up to our committee and the Parliament as a whole to hold the Government to account on those commitments. Secondly, there will be IT costs and everyone gets nervous whenever IT is mentioned. However, I think that it should be pointed out that all Governments, local and national, and the private sector have traditionally had problems with IT costs and forecasting exactly what they would be. Obviously, that is a challenge, but it is certainly not just a challenge for this place. However, we were informed that, even without this bill, there would be IT costs because the existing Forestry Commission computer system is not considered fit for purpose. I note in the Government's response that more information will be provided prior to stage 3, and that is very welcome. Thirdly, on financial issues, we discussed the whole question of rebranding involving signs, uniforms, vehicles, etc. Perhaps unusually for a UK institution, the Forestry Commission has a pretty positive image amongst the public. Understandably, we heard witnesses, including trade unions, say that they did not want to lose that positive feeling. Nor did they want to have a lot of money spent on repainting vehicles if that money could be used for planting trees. However, at the same time, if we are having a new organisation with a new name, there clearly will have to be some money spent, and it was reassuring to hear that there would be reserves in place so that current spending budgets could be protected. The compromise position that others have mentioned, which I think the committee has accepted, was that changes could be made over time, rather than as one big bang, and perhaps in a similar way to ScotRail rebranding their trains, the Forestry Commission signs, etc., and vehicles can gradually be repainted over time. We have had a number of briefings, and I think that I would like to thank other organisations who gave us briefings, specifically from Scottish Wildlife Trust, RSPB and CONFOR. The first two make points about having biodiversity in native woodland creation specifically in the bill, and many of us would absolutely agree with those principles. I think that the question for me being whether, A, we would be duplicating what is already stated elsewhere, and B, whether that is better placed in the strategy rather than the bill itself. Please conclude. I will be interested in the Government's thinking on that. A SWT suggests a hypothesisation of funds. That is not concluding. Conclude means thank you very much and sit down. I call Claudia Beamish to be followed by Richard Lyle. Ms Beamish, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Our forests and woodlands, as we have heard from many others, are some of our very precious natural resources. The Forestry and Land Management Bill is important for the future of Scotland for a wide range of reasons. Some of those are the responsibility of the Committee for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform to scrutinise, of which I am a member. I was just delighted to be asked by our committee to be the reporter for the bill. I would like to thank the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and its convener for the welcome that I received at the relevant sessions and my own committee clerks and SPICE for their support through the process of leading to our committee letter to the WREC Committee for its consideration. I will be highlighting the main points of our committee letter today, and if I have time, I will make one or two points of my own. I would like to start by emphasising the importance of my committee attaches to the overarching policy objectives of the bill, specifically in relation to forest functions. From our perspective, effective forest management offers the opportunity for multiple environmental and land management benefits. We are unclear as to the degree of the wider policy objectives, including those related to biodiversity, deer management and climate change, and how those are reflected in the bill. In particular, I am being taken into account in the preparation of the forest strategy. I note the Scottish Government response states that better alignment will be considered during stage 2. My committee also considers that there is merit in including the need to have regard to biodiversity and deer management requirements on the face of the bill. I also note that Scottish Government response states that there are a large number of policies, statutory duties and frameworks that are relevant to the economic, environmental and social outcomes of forestry, hence that we will consider those matters carefully in order to avoid limiting the scope of the linkages catered for by any amendment. At this stage, our committee is still considering an amendment, but I am happy to be in dialogue about that. I will continue by drawing focus on the term of sustainable development, the definition of which regularly emerges as an on-going challenge for legislators. In the previous session of the Parliament, the Racky Committee, of which I was a member, grappled with this term in relation to the Land Reform Act, and reached a similar conclusion to that of our present committee. In our letter, we state, we consider that the definition of sustainable development is widely understood and it is unnecessary to include that in the bill. In this context, our letter stress our view that the duties to promote sustainable forest management and sustainable development should also be on every public body and office holder and not just Scottish ministers. I note the Scottish Government response, which is that it will consider that, but I quote that, however, the duty is placed on Scottish ministers in the context of their new functions of forestry regulation, development and support, and those functions rightly sit within one body. I will take that back to our committee and discuss it in detail. My committee was unclear as to what the issue or problem of the part 3 provisions in relation to sustainable development are intended to address, the circumstances in which provisions are intended to be used and how they will result in the establishment of a land agency and, indeed, how that relates to the Scottish Land Commission. In the Scottish Government response, it stated that the purpose of the wider land management powers—those linked to the furthering of sustainable development—is to create more flexibility in the use of the Scottish Minister's land, the national forest estate, and enable a wide land management role for the new agency to help to manage other land, including publicly owned land of the national interest. That will aid our committee discussions prior to stage 2. We regard the acquisition, compulsory purchase and disposal of land clause as a backstop arrangement and recognise that it is important to such. However, the bill, as we state, does give Scottish ministers compulsory purchase powers in order to further the achievement of sustainable development for the first time when questioned by Scottish Government officials, did not provide a rationale for the extension of those powers. I am a little bit unclear at this stage if the member is talking about her views or whether she is representing the views of her committee. The views that she is representing and saying that they are coming from the committee have not been transmitted to the committee that I am the convener of. I would be grateful if you could clarify that. I think that I will let Ms Mimish clarify that for herself. With respect through the points that I am making are quotes from our letter to the Racky Committee. While I would be happy to discuss this afterwards with the convener, I have already expressed my recognition of the welcome that I received. I am quoting from our letter to the Racky Committee. I will proceed at this stage. In terms of the broad land management purpose of the bill, my committee asked for clarification before stage 2 in relation to section 13. I quote again, we were concerned that the consultation that informed the bill did not seek views on this. It appears that the Scottish Government officials were unable to set out why the powers in section 13 management of land for further development were needed and in what circumstances would be used. From the Scottish Government response, I understand that this is in relation to the issue of flexibility. In our letter, we make reference to other land and argue that we can see no justification for a difference in approach in the bill between national forest land and other land. Again, we ask the Scottish Government to reflect on this before stage 2. The definition of community body in section 19 is, in my committee's view, already clearly defined in previous legislation. In this bill, I quote, it differs from the definition in previous legislation, dealing with similar matters. That could cause confusion on a complex issue. We address that in more detail in our letter and ask the Scottish Government to reflect prior to stage 2. In relation to the delegation of functions to community bodies, my committee is clear that this bill adds to the community empowerment agenda or adds to what is already provided for in the community empowerment act. Finally, from my committee's perspective, tree health is part of our remit. I know that that has taken with the utmost seriousness across the Parliament. We emphasised the necessity for cross-border co-operation on that. I was pleased to hear what the cabinet secretary said today about the division of labour that was explained in his opening remarks. I hope that highlighting the issues raised by our committee in the letter to the Wreck Committee is found to be of value. We are pleased to have dialogue with the Scottish Government and, indeed, in relation to the intervention with the convener of the Wreck Committee. I do not think that I have time to highlight my point. No, but that was, thank you very much, Ms Beamish. I call Richard Lyle to be followed by John Finnie. Mr Lyle, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I begin this afternoon by expressing my pleasure at being able to contribute to today's stage 1 debate in the Forestry and Land Management Scotland Bill, particularly as the fifth member of the Parliament's Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Let's represent an area in the central belt of Scotland in Urdingston-Bel-Sil, which, beyond our exceptional staff-ride country park, does not always necessarily come to mind when discussing the forestry sector. That said, however, it is a sector that I have, through time in this place, been a champion of, as a member of the Rural Affairs Committee. It is a particular important part of Scotland's economy and, indeed, contributing to our vibrancy as a nation. Given the importance that the sector has here in Scotland, I think that it is only right that forestry is fully accountable to this place, our Scottish Parliament, and indeed to Scottish ministers. That is what this bill shall provide. It shall provide accountability, transparency of legislation, modernise the current legislative framework and enable more effective use of Scotland's publicly-owned land, an area that many across the chamber can agree on. Indeed, I am glad to rule economy and connectivity committee support the general principles of the bill. In particular, I know that the committee heard the majority of stakeholders very much welcomed the opportunity to fully devolve forestry matters to Scotland and recognise the need to update our forestry legislation, which is, of course, as I have mentioned, one of the key pillars of the bill. Devolution of forestry has, of course, been a manifesto commitment of the SNP in our 2011, 2015 and 2016 manifestos, and then committed to our 2016-17 programme for Government. As I mentioned this, it leads me to another of the key pillars of the bill, which is the accountability, transparency and policy alignment that the bill seeks to improve. This is an important area because there is indeed some confusion around the extent to which forestry is currently devolved at present. At present, Scottish ministers currently determine strategy and policy for forestry in Scotland, but the management of forestry, including of the national forest estate NFE, has since the evolution remained with the forestry commissioners. The commissioners are a UK non-ministerial department and currently a cross-border public authority. The bill shall rightly see the transfer of the powers and duties of the forestry commissioners in Scotland to Scottish ministers. Along with it, also shall be transferred the responsibility for plant health to Scottish ministers, so that the responsibility for all plant health in Scotland will reside in one place. Ultimately, it will fall to Scottish ministers to promote sustainable forest management and publish a forest strategy. Crucially, the bill not only creates a legal duty to promote sustainable forest management but creates a modernised legislative framework that absolutely supports, regulates and promotes the development and growth of forestry in Scotland. The bill, I believe, will see a new future for the industry. The final pillar of the bill that I wish to reflect on is the forestry land management Scotland bill, which will enable effective use of Scotland's publicly owned land. Giving effect to Scottish ministers being responsible for managing the national forest estate to deliver economic, social and environmental outcomes. That includes the ability to enter into arrangements to manage other people's land, including public bodies, for following a further manifesto commitment to establish a land management agency. It will also enable ministers to delegate land management functions to community bodies. In the time that I have remaining, Presiding Officer, and I'll try to be within my seven minutes, I don't want to get cut off. I would wish to reflect— In six minutes, Mr Lyle, there you go. I'll keep going. I wish to reflect on the steps beyond the bill that are required to complete the journey in terms of devolution and indeed a further recognition of the importance of the sector in Scotland beyond which I have stated today. First, it is important to state that the bill is not an end point in completing the journey of the devolution of forestry, as there should be two further pieces of work once the bill has completed the passage. Indeed, the bill has the first of three principle activities that are required to complete the devolution of forestry. The first piece of work is the passage of the secondary orders under the Scotland Act 1998 in the UK Parliament to wind up the forestry commissioners as a cross-border public authority and make other consequential provisions in light of the bill, thus helping to establish new collaborative cross-border arrangements with the UK and Welsh Governments, managed here too by the forestry commission and makes arrangements to transfer some of the forestry commissioners' property and liabilities to Scottish ministers. Financials' business and regulatory impacts will be considered as part of development of those orders in line with the standard requirements. The second piece of work is the establishment of a new organisational transfer by transferring to Scottish Government the activities that are presently delivered by the Forestry Commission in Scotland through the Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland. Of course, the chamber, I am sure, agrees that Scottish forests and woodlands are one of our greatest and indeed our most valuable rural asset, the sector being worth £1 billion per annum in supporting 26,000 jobs. On every occasion, I have spoken in this chamber in the forestry sector, I would like to reiterate that the forestry sector is incredibly important to our economy, which also plays a hugely important part in tackling climate change, protecting and growing biodiversity, natural floods management and, of course, contributes to the improvement of general health and wellbeing across Scotland. To conclude, I am delighted that the bill as forthcoming will help to continue the journey towards the devolution of the forestry sector, which will enable us collectively to work together to deliver this important sector and for Scotland. I call John Finnie to be followed by Gail Ross. Mr Finnie, please. I too welcome the legislation to support the principles. Like others, I want to thank people for their briefings. Much has been made of the number of jobs that the forestry supports. I have here 25,000, I have heard 26,000, and if that is a thousand since I had that briefing, that is great, and an industry worth a billion. Confor has said significantly that the bill must provide the right assistance, because the right assistance is not mutually exclusive work in the industrial aspect of it nor in the environmental aspect of it. When the Scottish Wildlife Trust talks about Scotland's woodlands, it is not currently realising its full potential. That is in helping Scotland to adapt to climate change and to talk about more connected repair in woodlands, which could prevent flooding, reduce erosion, improve water quality, allow wildlife to move through the landscape, something of growing importance. As has been said by quite a number of other people, woodlands are an important carbon sink to help them to get climate change. The issue that we always encounter with legislation is what it is and it is not on the face of the bill. In our stage 1 report, it talks about the planting targets in a commitment to appropriate levels of reforestation being on the forestry strategy. Confor seeks an amendment to include planting targets in future wood supply way. We have heard that it is a long-term industry and certainly part of the review period of the strategy is something that, again, has been the subject of much discussion. The important thing is that that review period includes consultation with all the forestry stakeholders, as it has been said. It is a long-term vision. In the particular response to that from the cabinet secretary to that section, there was something that jumped out at me in the response. For example, there is a known unintended consequence of the current seven-year cycle for the cap that at least has suppression of woodland creation. We certainly do not want that and we do not want the uncertainty that Brexit is going to bring. It is long-term assurances that are important to the industry, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government is going to reflect on the strategy. I think that it is important that it is a living document. We also know that there is a call for a strengthened commitment to reforestation. They may be seen as going hand in glove. Certainly, the Woodlands Scottish Wildlife Trust sees it as an opportunity to increase the quality of Scotland's native woodlands. Forestry is everywhere. We have heard from previous speakers with urban constituencies that there is an impact there. I commend the work that goes on in the heart of our cities and across the country from organisations such as the Woodland Trust and community groups. It is also good that the Scottish Government acknowledges the interests that stakeholders have in the organisational arrangements and that they are going to provide a statement. Clearly, there is a lot of affection for the Forestry Commission and my former employee. My father was, my father-in-law was as well. It is important that those concerns are recognised. Indeed, we heard that reiterating in the cabinet secretary's speech. I certainly know in relation to some from the social and environmental sector of the forestry small business people in enterprise that they are grateful for the technical support advice and financial stimulus that they receive from the Forestry Commission. And in a communication with me, they express a concern that it will be, and I quote, submerged into Victoria Key. Now clearly, I do not think anyone. Yes indeed. Cabinet secretary. I am very happy to give the reassurance that that should not happen. And moreover, recently, we extended grant finance to small cabinet makers and joiners who are using Scottish Woods and they are delighted to do so. John Finnie. Thank you. I am grateful for that reassurance from the cabinet secretary. And I should say that that communication went on to refer to the Forestry Commission as one, a rural success story. And I think that's how I would certainly want to see it. Now the concerns that do around that could in part be offset, I think, by a proposal from the committee and that relates to the establishment of a chief forester post. That would be entirely consistent with the position in relation to chief planner, chief medical officer, chief scientist. And I think that it would send a very clear signal about the commitment to the profession of forestry there. Now I note that the Scottish Government will consider that and I hope that it will be given real detailed thought. The definition of sustainable forest management, well, I look at the Scottish Woodland Trust and indeed Confor talk about us the definition that they would go with and I have to say that the same identical it goes on about the stewardship and the use of forest and forest lands in a way and at a rate that maintains and where appropriately enhances their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity and vitality and their potential to fulfil now and in the future relevant ecological, economic and social functions at local, national and global levels and does not cause damage to other ecosystems. Now I think that that brings us to what we heard from the cabinet secretary about the cross-warber and tree health issues. I found that very reassuring. I understand that there's a letter to the committee about that. Passing quickly to the strategic timber transport fund that was alluded to. Well, it's actually cheaper and more environmentally friendly to transport timber to Norbert from Argyll via boats, so I would commend that approach. The management of land by Scottish ministers. I have to say that I didn't share the concerns that many did. It's absolutely right, as my colleague John Mason highlighted, to have a range of options available to people in land negotiations and compulsory purchases is one. And I mean that I'm aware from a previous time as a councillor of a rancin strip and people will understand that the public good can't be held back in that. Similarly, with the definition of sustainable development, I look forward to that, but again, no issues. And as I said, I was happily one of the minority. What's on the face of the bill is important. I would like to see our native woodland creation targets in legislation that tie up with sustainable deer management also is important. And something I don't think many have commented on, that funds raised by disposals from the national forest estate should be reinvested. And I hope that we'll get a long-term commitment from the Scottish Government to do that. Thank you. Thank you very much. I call Gay Ross, who may or may not be followed by Mike Rumbles. Miss Ross, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Despite John Mason's apparent surprise, I don't think that it came as a surprise to the red committee that the Forestry Commission Scotland is held in extremely high regard by its stakeholders, people in the sector, its staff and the public as a whole. Its branding is instantly recognisable and there has rightly been a high level of interest in the current proposals and what they will mean for the industry and the environment. And anyone who has read the report or watched any of the committee sessions will know the high level of scrutiny we've given this and rightly so. It's a hugely important piece of work that will not only help the Scottish Government to achieve its planting targets, but also to diversify the forest estate and contribute to conservation, biodiversity and climate change targets. As John Mason also mentioned, the committee made a visit to Mull where we heard about forestry on the island. We were also a little bit nervous about midges that day, but as Stewart Stevenson told us, they only fly in speeds of under five miles an hour of wind, so we were lucky there was a little breeze that day. I also went out for a day with the Forestry Commission in Sutherland and we heard hours of evidence here in the Scottish Parliament about this bill. Can I also put down my thanks to all those who took the time to come into the Parliament and also to submit written evidence? And it's great to see so many individuals and organisations that are so passionate about forestry and woodland here in Scotland. I would also like to thank the committee clerks, Spice, my fellow committee members and those of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, particularly Claudia Beamish. Our main objectives for the report were to understand the current functions of the Forestry Commission and Forestry Enterprise Scotland and to find out how those proposals would work under Scottish ministers as proposed and put forward our recommendations to the Scottish Government. And as the cabinet secretary laid out in his opening remarks, the bill itself has three main aims, to improve accountability and transparency of legislation, to modernise the current legislative framework and to enable more effective use of Scotland's publicly owned land. So, just to explain where we are and what is proposed, currently, Forestry Commission Scotland provides policy, advice, regulation and grants. And Forestry Enterprise Scotland is an executive agency of the Forestry Commission that manages the national forest estate. And the new structure proposes that the Forestry Commission's functions will be carried out by a dedicated forestry division of the Scottish Government which will be responsible for grants, regulations, support and development. When Forestry Enterprise Scotland will become Forestry and Land Scotland which will still manage the national forest estate. Now, I'm pleased to see that the Scottish Government has agreed with several of the recommendations in the stage 1 report, with several more being given consideration. Agreement has been reached on including an acceptable definition of sustainable forest management and a working definition of sustainable development in the Scottish forestry strategy. Agreement on the integration of the goals of the forestry strategy with the UK forestry standard. Agreement to provide guidance on felling and private forestry owners and to also look at the definition of felling, as was mentioned previously. Agreement that registration for notices to comply should be proportionate and cost and resource effective and also that the rebranding costs should be kept as low as possible. And the committee did recommend, as also has been stated previously, that the vehicles etc should only really be rebranded as when they're needed to be. Presiding Officer, the committee heard from many people about the opportunities that this presents, but we also heard a number of concerns and these must be addressed. The Scottish Government has to allay any concerns that have been brought forward by stakeholders about the new setup, giving control to Scottish ministers, and we have heard from the cabinet secretary that this will happen. Scottish Government should also give consideration to the post of chief forester and it should also give cast iron guarantees that there will be no loss of expertise or specialisms and give examples of how these will be retained and even developed further. There must be consideration given to a regular review of the forestry strategy at least every five years, with a full refresh every 10 years, and Parliament must have the opportunity to scrutinise it before it's agreed. Consultation with stakeholders must be thorough and wide. We would like to see an overarching high-level statement of ambition that makes clear that modern forestry strategy and practices will reflect an integrated approach to land use, community interests, planning, biodiversity and the environment. And we all agreed that cross-border work-in on tree health, disease and forestry science is essential and must continue and be strengthened. I welcome the announcement from the cabinet secretary today. So, for the existing staff and the people in the future that wish to make forestry a career, for the health and expansion of our forest estate and for the wellbeing of our citizens in both rural and urban areas, given the current climate, getting forestry right has never been more important. The committee supports the general principles of the bill and we ask that Parliament does likewise. Thank you. I have Mike Rumbles, who is followed by Fulton MacGregor. Thank you, deputies, Presiding Officer. The Liberal Democrats support this bill before us today and it's quite right that we update the legislation surrounding forestry to ensure that we have a thriving and profitable industry. And I'm encouraged by the improved targets for tree planting outlined by the cabinet secretary and I wish him well in actually achieving them. And let's hope that we do over the next few years. Now, as the rural economy and connectivity committee points out in its report to Parliament on this bill, it has made a number of recommendations to improve the bill, which we fully support. I am, of course, a member of the rural economy and connectivity committee and in the committee we took a great deal of evidence from stakeholders in our stage 1 examination. Now, one of the most important areas of concern in the bill has been the issue, as raised previously, of separating the functions of the Forestry Commission and the committee has called on the Scottish Government to provide further reassurance with regard to the practical implications of its proposals. And I'm also pleased that the Government's response to the committee stage 1 report that the minister acknowledges this. The other contentious issue in the bill is that of the whole issue of extending the powers of Scottish ministers for the compulsory purchase of land. Now, there was real concern expressed to the committee that given that the compulsory purchase powers in the 67 act have never been used, that's never been used. So why is it that ministers wish not only to transfer these powers to the new legislation but to increase and extend these powers of compulsory purchase? Now, I don't like the idea of Parliament giving up its powers to ministers at the best of times, but to extend further powers of compulsory purchase that were given to ministers back in 1967, that have, I say, for the third time never been used seems to me to be bizarre in the extreme. Of course I will, John Finnie. John Finnie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm grateful for the member for taking an intervention at that point. I take it by the member saying used. You mean actually go to court. Would you accept that they have an application short of going to court and it is actually about dispute resolution? Look, Mike Rumbles. Whichever way you look at this, these powers have never been used. I've said it for the fourth time in case people don't understand that. They have never been used. And I have to say to John Mason that I, for one, am not rich. I don't consider myself powerful and I'm certainly not a landowner and I am not a supporter of these unnecessary measures. So I don't know who John was targeting there. Maybe he was targeting someone else. It's not for me to say. But I don't think that that is quite right. The evidence to the committee was quite clear on this and I was pleased when the committee did its job. The committee did its job in a vote. A vote which I'm also pleased to say did not simply divide along party lines. And I think that that was really important. It recommended to the Government that it should change its mind here. The committee recommended that the powers contained in the 67 act should be transferred and I wasn't particularly keen to see it but I certainly agreed the parliamentary report transferred to this new piece of legislation but that these powers of compulsory purchase should not be extended. Now I do hope the Government actually listens to the committee. I did notice in the minister's response in his written response that he has noted it. Well I hope he does more than that and brings forward his own amendments to stage 2 to reflect this. This is the committee of parliament doing its job. This is what we're here for to do. To take evidence, listen to the evidence and without partisanship try to get the best result in this because we're all in favour of this bill and we want to make it work. So I hope the Government recognises it too because I also think the bill can be improved in other ways too. I personally would like to see an amendment at stage 2 to make it clear that the strategic objectives of any land acquisition and disposal should be set out in the Scottish Forestry Strategy. Otherwise there is no guarantee or requirement for there to be any strategic plan for acquisition or disposal and the whims of ministers would rule. I return to the fact that I've always believed that it is wrong to give too much power away to ministers. I made this point to Ross Finney when he was rural affairs minister bringing legislation forward in the first two parliamentary sessions and I voted against him. I make this point again. I say this is not because it's a party of political point. It is not a party of political point. Parliamentarians should be very wary of handing over unrestricted powers to ministers of any political point and I'm not attacking the current minister. I'm talking about any minister of any political party. In conclusion, this is a good bill and the Liberal Democrats are happy to support it. However, as I've pointed out, there is room for improvement and we would indeed like to see it improved. I do have a little bit of time in hand if anybody wants to take advantage of that with interventions. Not just rambling on for the sake of it, I have to say interventions. I call Fulton MacGregor to be followed by Finlay Carson. As a member of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, I support the general principles of the bill. It's been an interesting learning curve for myself. A background in social work and social science, primarily. I've learned a lot through this bill so I'm grateful to the opportunity for that as well. A strong forestry sector is important to a vibrant Scotland and it's important that forestry in Scotland is fully accountable to this Parliament. The bill makes forestry accountable to the Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament and, as I said, it's an important economic sector in Scotland that's worth £1 billion annually. During the committee, we heard from our range of stakeholders that others have mentioned to welcome the opportunity to fully devolve forestry matters to Scotland and recognise that there's a real need to update the forestry legislation. Completing devolution of forestry has been a long-standing commitment of this Government. I'm pleased that we are now taking steps to complete this process. By doing so, we'll ensure that the economic, social and environmental benefits already delivered by forestry in Scotland are protected and nurtured. It's safe to say that this Government are committed to ensuring that forestry can deliver more in the future and we hope to provide stability and a long-term plan for the industry. Sustainable forestry is at the heart of the bill and by putting safeguards in place that ensure that our forestry land is being used in a way that promotes sustainable forest management, we are protecting the industry and suitability. That is so important for ensuring that our forests provide biodiversity, productivity and regenerational capacity and ultimately ensures that there are no damage done to other ecosystems. That is in line with forest Europe's protection of forests definition of forest strategy. I also want to comment on the idea of enhancing a sustainable domestic timber sector. We must do so while recognising the important contribution that forestry makes to the rural communities across Scotland. I believe that the creation of the new forestry bill allows us to redefine forestry and ensure that our industry is ready for the future. I believe that we will now be able to ensure that any long-term economic impacts and environmental sustainability of a vital industry in Scotland is safeguarded. Thing about native woodlands are clear that they are beneficial for us all. They provide a habitat to a wide range of species. They provide environmental benefits, as others have said, and they can even act as a social space for us all to enjoy. In woodland habitats, they can give people the opportunity to interact with wildlife in a natural setting, both in an informal way and in the promotion of more formal activities, such as environmental education. I even think about myself. As I said in the chamber before, I like Munro climbing and fear weather in Munro climbing, I must add. There is nothing better than when you are up in the forest in the smell of pine, and I know the NDLs who walk through the forest. I agree with that. Just at the weekend there, I took the family way over to Cunigirl loop, which is not in my constituency. I have to say that I think that if my geography is right, it will be clear hockies. If not, I apologise to the member. I thank you, John. It is a fantastic facility as well. I go back to my constituency. I recently met with Charleston Dastryn, the Woodland Trust, and I had a walk around Rampelior country park in my constituency. I was not aware of that. Prior to that, there was some ancient woodland there. I am quite proud of that fact. 1 per cent of Scotland has covered an ancient woodland. As I said, I have found out now that someone is in my constituency, so that is really good. I also know something that we spoke about during that particular walk was the deer management issue, which has been raised by the Scottish Wildlife Trust as well as others. I probably would be worth saying that it is not the only time that I have had contact with the trust on constituency matters. Just recently I have been involved with a community dispute where a local company has actually went in and cut down a number of trees that have been in place for over 20 years without notice or consultation to residents. Residents consider these trees as part of their home, and although it would not be appropriate for hearing the chamber to give it more details of that particular case, I think that it does highlight the need for some of the community involvement aspects that we took evidence on in the bill. Woodlands are, as I said, natural deer habitats, and the creation of a new woodland would ensure deer have suitable habitats in a lot of them to colonise in appropriate areas. I would be, as John Finnie said, inclined to consider the trust response that sets out that all owners and managers of private forests in woodland have a responsibility to ensure that arrangements are in place to manage the dears. Presiding Officer, I welcome the Scottish Government recognising some of the concerns expressed by stakeholders. I was set out by the minister of Scottish Government of Knowledge the importance of retaining local office networks and sustaining opportunities for interchange between agency and division. That is in response to concerns about a potential loss, expertise and skills. This year's skills retention is a focus of the new agency and new division projects under the recently established forestry devolution programme. The projects will be identifying ways to continue to recognise the value in value engagement with the professional bodies and identify jobs requiring specific professional qualifications. Presiding Officer, I will just touch briefly on the issue of community of compulsory purchase orders. I am not going to get involved in a mass dispute here but I believe then I was 33 per cent of the SNP team with Stuart Stevenson accounting for the other 66 per cent. SNP members who were a minority of the committee. My view on that is to... Is there a question? Yes. Have I got time? Yes, that's certainly. David Stewart. Confirming if it was SNP policy that Stuart Stevenson counted as one and a half members as he testified earlier. Fulton MacGregor. I couldn't possibly comment on that. But certainly he managed to dig himself out a whole earlier with his one and a half members quote. But what I did want to say in a serious note about compulsory purchase orders is why I mentioned my previous experience in social work at the start is the CPO whenever we were using the term it just reminded me of a child protection order because that's obviously what we referred to as. And actually, John Finnie's point about the legal status is very, very important. Actually, a child protection order is rarely used and accessed. And actually it's probably not too extreme to imagine a day where we would not need it. There's no time left, Mr Rumbles. I'm going to develop the point anyway. Where we would not actually need it, you wouldn't want it not to be there. And also when a process goes through like a child protection process or another process goes through, it works on the basis that that is in place and that could possibly be. So I will leave it at that point. I'm coming to the end. I think you're at it. I wasn't saying a bit about failing and I'll leave it at that. Thanks very much. Thank you, Mr MacGregor. Can I have Finlay Carson to be followed by Colin Smyth, please? Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the announcements made by the cabinet secretary. However, when these benches are not alone in holding serious concerns about the current bill before Parliament, Scottish Land and Estate stated that they have major concerns with the Government's current proposals and that the bill was poorly constructed in contrast to the Forestry Act 1967. Bidwells have highlighted that they are disquiet over the proposals to strengthen and broaden Scottish ministerial powers of compulsory purchase. The Institute of Chartered Foresters considered that significant amendments are required. The National Farmers Union of Scotland highlighted the bill's potential for undermining relations between farming and forestry. Furthermore, the Community Woodlands Association also seeks greater clarity over a number of definitions within the bill. I am glad to find myself within the company of many reputable and knowledgeable stakeholders in highlighting my concerns with the bill and its current form. There are two areas of significant concern within the bill. The lack of clarity over key definitions and the expansion of compulsory purchasing powers. The Oxford Jetsonary clearly defines clarity as the quality of being clear and intelligible. However, the bill currently fails to provide a clear and intelligible definition of forestry land, sustainable forest management, sustainable development and community body. Once again, legislation brought before this Parliament lacks clarity. We have witnessed this during stage 1 of the Wild Animals and Travelling Circuses Bill, where vague definitions were applied to wild animals and travelling circuses. During the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee evidence session on 7 June, the Scottish Government's Forestry and Land Management Bill team could not provide further reassurance as to how compulsory purchase could further the achievements of sustainable development. Key definitions within the bill have willingly been left to the discretion of ministerial interpretation. In order to provide the transparency and confidence that the forestry sector requires, the ministers must ensure that those definitions are given further clarity if the bill is to move forward to the next stage. However, I am glad that the cabinet secretary in his letter to the committee convenier Edward Mountain has indicated that he will review certain measures within the bill, namely surrounding vague and unclear definitions. Presiding Officer, I believe that an expansion of the existing compulsory purchase power is not required. The current powers found under the Forestry Act 1967 have not scarcely been used, but have never been used by Scottish ministers. A further enhancement of those powers would only reaffirm the mantra of this SNP Government and see further unnecessary centralisation of power. The use of compulsory powers have also been raised recently in the discussion paper published by the Scottish Law Commission, which noted the peculiar disturbing circumstances of losing property under a statutory process, and went further to state that it is of the highest importance that, as it affects ordinary people, the legislation should be as clear as possible. Stakeholders are also concerned with the use of compulsory purchase. The NFUS is sceptical that the two fundamental principles of valuations for compulsory purchase would need to be consistent and rigorously abided by. That is that the seller and the purchaser are both willing and that the seller is no better or worse off. We have seen this already happen through what some people see as the mishandling of the compulsory purchase orders along the route of the Aberdeen Western peripheral route. I therefore believe that the compulsory purchase powers under this act are at best unnecessary and at worst a power grab by the Government. Presiding Officer, I welcome aspects of the bill, namely that a routine review of forestry strategy and the strengthening provisions related to tree health, which I believe will be beneficial to my constituency of Galloway and Western Frees, where, as everybody knows, we are campaigning to establish Scotland's next national park, which would take in the whole of Galloway forest park. However, in order for this bill to provide the action it seeks to undertake, fundamental changes must be made to the bill in its current form. I call Colin Smyth to be followed by a forgotten. Angus MacDonald Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate on legislation that will have a major impact on an important sector within my South Scotland region. As we have already heard, forestry plays an invaluable role in many aspects of Scottish life contributing to climate change mitigation, biodiversity, flood management, health and wellbeing and, of course, tourism. It is estimated that the sector supports around 25,000 full-time equivalent jobs across Scotland and £954 million of gross value added. It is particularly important to rural economies. My own home region of Dumfries and Galloway has one of the highest concentrations of forestry in the country with woods and forest covering some 31 per cent of the land. The 211,000 hectares range from the great spruce forests of Galloway and Estelle Muir through the traditional estate forest, such as those of Buclwus States, to the small, native and farm woodlands that are so important to the beautiful landscape of Dumfries and Galloway. Not surprisingly, the region is a major timber-producing area that has some 30 per cent of Scotland's home-grown timber each year and is home to Scotland's largest biomass power station. The timber industry is responsible for more than 3,000 jobs in Dumfries and Galloway, many of which are in remote rural areas. It is therefore an economic and environmental imperative that the bill adequately supports the forestry sector and the associated industries. I am happy to support the general principles of the bill today and I welcome the bill's broad aims. In addition to the need to fully devolve forestry powers, I support the need to promote accountability, transparency and policy alignment in this area. Likewise, any endeavours to modernise the sector and improve the effectiveness of how we use Scotland's publicly owned land is very much welcome. However, there is more to be done to ensure that the bill fully supports those aims and I commend the work done by both the rural economy and the Connectivity Committee and the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee in scrutinising the bill. It is important to acknowledge that many aspects of forestry interrelate closely with other policy areas and I hope that the Government will accept the committee's calls for the development of an, I quote, an overarching high-level statement of ambition on the face of the bill that makes it clear that modern forestry strategy and practices will reflect an integrated approach to land use, community interests and the environment. Presiding Officer, I appreciate the need for full devolution of forestry matters, however, it is important that the existing engagement between stakeholders from communities and local authorities are not compromised in the process. Bringing the management of the forestry estate into the Scottish Government's remit does risk the potential for overcentralisation, which frankly has been a habit of Government in recent years and we must be careful to guard against that. Local forest districts and their outreach functions play a crucial role and it is vital that the new structure reflects that role. In Dumfries and Galloway, the estate is governed by two forest districts, Galloway district and Dumfries and Borders districts, which between them cover 171,000 hectares. In addition to the production role, the current arrangements have played a crucial part in developing the wider health and recreational benefits of forests in the area from the development of the Seven Steins cycling project to the Scottish Darts Sky Observatory in Galloway forest park, which hopefully, given time, will become a Galloway national park. It is vital that we maintain the role carried out by forest districts in any new structures. The bill will also bring into force the proposed restructuring of the forestry commission. The plans as they stand have failed to win support. Indeed, the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee noted in the quote wide-ranging concerns expressed by stakeholders at the separation of the functions of the forestry commission. In particular, I would highlight concerns that the scope, focus and resources of the forestry division may be diluted over time and the separation of the division and the commission may result in a loss of professional forestry expertise. That bill and the discussions around it provide an opportunity to examine these issues and to work to address concerns on the matter. I welcome the Scottish Government's announcement that they will produce a statement setting out how it will manage and administer its forestry responsibilities and the relationship between the forestry division and the agency. It is essential that this provides assurances on these issues and clarifies what will be done to ensure that the separation of the commission's functions will not weaken the total capacity of the two organisations. Likewise, I am glad that the Scottish Government is considering the committee's recommendation that significant changes to the arrangement set out in the statement must be notified to Parliament and be subject to further consideration. The introduction of a status requirement for a Scottish Government forestry strategy based on sustainable forest management is also a welcome change and I am glad that the Scottish Government have agreed to the rural economy and connectivity committee's recommendation that a working definition of the term sustainable forest management is given in order to provide clarity on what exactly is expected. I also welcome calls to include a statutory process to ensure regular revision and the review of the forestry strategy is undertaken. I appreciate that there is a balance to be struck between providing flexibility and certainty but the committee's recommendation for the strategy to be reviewed every five years and refreshed every 10 years seems a reasonable one. Another key concern raised in submissions to the committee was on the topic of devolution and its impact on research capabilities and scientific expertise. The South of Scotland regional forest reform highlighted this issue, stating that it is essential that Britain's current forest research capability is not lost and that it discussions on a cross-border approach to forest research reach a successful conclusion. Likewise, the National Trust for Scotland asked for clarification on how cross-border co-operation will develop and indeed the committee's report noted the widespread view of that and I quote again the research functions of the current UK wide forestry commission are crucial to the continuing health of Scotland's forests. That is a crucial point to take into consideration during the devolution process. So, Presiding Officer, I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to provide regular updates and the progress of its discussions with the rest of the UK in this issue and I'm glad they've recognised the importance of an appropriate framework for cross-border research is in place before the bill comes into place. There is still, however, a lack of clarity over the purposes of the compulsory purchase order that the purchase powers confer by the bill and particularly provision relating to sustainable development. The current widespread lack of confidence in this aspect of the bill has to be addressed if the Scottish Government has to take that particular provision forward, no matter the support that exists there. Presiding Officer, the full devolution of forestry powers is a valuable opportunity to improve our approach to the sector, a sector of such importance to thousands of my constitutions. There is significant scope for progress here and for that reason I'm happy to support the general principles of this bill. However, the bill, as it stands, does require work to be done before it is fit for purpose. I'm glad the Scottish Government has already agreed to a number of the committee's recommendations and I'd urged them to give further consideration to the other points raised here today and by stakeholders across Scotland. Thank you. Before I call Mr MacDonald, can I remind all parties in this chamber that no front bench should ever be left empty during a debate? I ask all parties represented to take note of that for future reference. Thank you. I thank Mr MacDonald, pleased to be followed by Tom Mason. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Following on from the successful transfer of the crowning state to crowning state Scotland, will Scottish ministers now responsible for all crowning state assets in Scotland and with all revenue profit going to the Scottish Government? We now see through this bill forestry being made fully accountable to Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament. I have to say, it's always struck me in the past that not having forestry matters fully devolved to Scotland has been messy to say the least, so I'm glad to see it being tidied up, albeit with continued cross-border working on tree health and other matters. So there's no doubt that a strong forestry sector, worst as we've already heard, £1 billion annually is important to a vibrant Scotland and it's also vitally important that forestry in Scotland is fully accountable to this Parliament. So Presiding Officer, I hope to cover three main strands in my contribution today, woodland deer management, sustainable forest management and biodiversity. Now we know from the work that the former Racky committee did on deer management and more recently the Claire committee since its formation last year that there are too many deer in Scotland. According to the Scottish Wildlife Trust and I thank them for the briefing that they provided in advance of today's debate, using estimates of deer populations in Scotland's forests, there are around 85,000 to 100,000 row, sicka and fallow deer in privately owned Scottish forests and 40,000 to 45,000 in the national forestry state. And red deer estimates in private forests are between 45,000 to 60,000 and on the national forestry state the figure is between 40,000 to 45,000. Now we also know that 30 per cent of all deer culling in Scotland has been carried out by the Forestry Commission or Forest Enterprise Scotland in the national forestry state which unbelievably costs the taxpayer over £3 million per year and that's not including the cost of deer fences which is another story that we will not go into today. But this is clearly disproportionate given the national forestry state covers only 6 per cent of the land area. So with the creating of new woodland which this bill will clearly enable we'll also see the creation of new deer habitats. And it should therefore go without saying that it's surely the responsibility of all owners and managers of private forests and woodland to manage the deer that live in their patch and that includes culling as Fulton MacGregor and John Finnie have already alluded to. Yes, briefly. Edward Mountain. Thank you, I thank the member for taking the intervention. When you are submitting applications for new woodland grants he means part of the process is deer management and deer management has to be considered. So surely what you're asking for is already happening happening by there considering it is just a question of implementing it. Would you agree? Angus MacDonald. Well implementation is the key, absolutely. But such action as I've suggested would clearly help the timber crop, improve the woodlands biodiversity and significantly reduce the impacts of deer grazing on nearby agricultural crops and of course reduce the risk of road traffic collisions with deer which some of us have experienced. So Presiding Officer, given the unexpected knowledge that I've gained on the issue of deer management through serving on the former RACI committee in the previous session of Parliament for four years and the current declare committee I have to save a lot of sympathy for and fully understand the Scottish Wildlife Trust's call that there should be a legal requirement for forest owners to take adequate and appropriate steps to manage and control deer. So I would suggest that there is a strong argument for SWT's assertion that the bill should be amended to incorporate a duty of sustainable deer management for all forest owners. Having a plan in place to manage deer would clearly reduce the damaging impacts that deer can have and would also create economic opportunities through the letting of deer stocking and the resultant venison sales. And this would tie in well with our calls in the 2016 report on deer management by the declare committee. Now turning to the issue of biodiversity and the sustainable forest management I'm pleased to note that whilst the bill in its current form does not define sustainable forest management the policy memorandum uses the widely accepted definition from the 93 pan-European ministerial conference on the protection of forests in Europe. However, I understand that the Government has accepted the committee's recommendation that for as long as sustainable forest management is the goal the accepted definition should be included in the forest strategy which is welcomed. And the definition fits well with the requirement for Scottish ministers to set out their objective priorities and policies with respect to the promotion of sustainable forest management. But can I just add with regard to the issue of compulsory purchase orders compulsory purchase order powers being extended to include sustainable development? I'm pleased that the cabinet secretary has indicated in his opening remarks that he's listening he's in listening mode on this issue. However, I have to say with my family having been subjected to CPOs in the past I can testify to the fact that the threat of them does help to concentrate minds whether you like them or not. So, you know, we have experience of that. Anyway, turning back to biodiversity before my time runs out it must remain on the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament's radar. I note the RSPB's request in the briefing that biodiversity should be given more distinct recognition in the bill in addition to other environmental considerations such as flood water management and carbon sequestration. They also suggest that the bill should be amended to include a duty to develop a statutory method of assessing sustainable forest management which seems to me to be a reasonable request and I look forward to possible consideration of that at stages 2 and possibly 3. So, in closing, Presiding Officer, the creation of this new bill redefines forestry in Scotland for the 21st century ensuring the long-term economic and environmental sustainability of this vital industry. I welcome the devolution of forestry to Scottish ministers and the fact that forestry will be fully accountable to this Parliament is, in my view, long overdue another step in the right direction, Presiding Officer. The last of the open debate, Speaker, is Tom Mason. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Scotland's land and forests are vitally important resources for so many in our country. I myself have observed asic forests up near Nain develop over at least one cycle if not into the second cycle. I will be at the loss to find it not sustainable. I actually believe, I understood from the foresters that it was the only sustainable forest in Scotland. As such, it is incumbent on us to be responsible in how we legislate for them and focus on putting in place the best practice to benefit Scotland as a whole. The forestry sector alone is worth almost a billion pounds per year in the economy, supporting more than 26,000 jobs and, of course, the families that rely on them. It is also important to consider environmental concerns. Continued our facilitation is for undoubted relevance when trying to limit levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, that bill bears a number of similarities with many others that have come before this Parliament, not least of all the Wild Animals Circus Act. While my intention is for the most part but poorly written and vague to the extent that the fundamental aims of the bill are lacking substantive clarity. I have read the cabinet secretary's letter to Edwin Mountain, given that he had the recs recommendation for almost a month. It was regrettable to see that his response snuck out on Friday afternoon before this debate. I myself missed it since I was occupied over the weekend. And whilst the cabinet secretary has said that he might consider some issues for a member, I believe that the Government should be much clearer, much sooner. One such example is how we define sustainable forest management. That should be simple. However, the Scottish Government's key forestry bill did not even think to define it. Forcing concessions from the cabinet secretary before it even made stage 1. It is important to have strict definitions where ministers wish to grant themselves sweeping new powers to adjudicate on these matters. Otherwise, we risk a situation where the Government can hide poor performance and implementation behind vague terms of reference. I would simply... This is simply not good enough. I urge ministers to take on amendments in this area. With this in mind, I have real concerns with the expansion of the compulsory purchase powers that the bill would give ministers. That has been mentioned quite often already. I apologise. I apologise to that. For example, it is not long ago that SNP was cheering on such orders to facilitate Donald Trump's Balmidy family project. Presiding Officer, that did not exactly go well. In addition, the Scottish Government is totally inexperienced in making compulsory purchases for the purpose of sustainable development. It is made now. There are currently no examples of Scottish ministers using the powers of compulsory purchase in the context of forestry. Of course, they probably need to figure out what it all means first. Yes, if you wish. Stewart Stevenson Thank you very much. Just for clarity, the Scottish Government and indeed local authorities are very experienced in making compulsory purchase orders in general. I cannot imagine that the purpose being for sustainable development will make the process in any material way much different. Tom Mason All situations have their own competence, and if they have not experienced the forestry one, they will not be competent to do so. I really do recommend the ministers to think again on whether or not those provisions are really necessary. I am also worried about the requirement for the totally new IT system. Royal Scotland is still paying for the Scottish Government's incompetence in this area. Although I suspect that the cabinet secretary was hoping we would all forget about that. I share the concerns of my Conservative colleagues have raised in relation to defining of a community body and section 17 proposals to sail, get lease or gift of land to anyone ministers feel fit. I know that the cabinet secretary has agreed to explore potential need for amendments here, but it should be a serious error of judgment worthy to fall by the wayside. We are on this side of the chamber and would not prefer to see any funds raised from the soil of forestry land reinvested in a continuous afforestation rather than grants. I hope that the Scottish Government will take that on board. Presiding Officer, this bill will have profound effects on our rural economy. However, the drafting of it is simply not up to the required level, but it also fails to strike correct balances in many areas. It goes too far with compulsive purchase powers and the IT system, but it is not far enough when it comes to reinvesting afforestation for the future. There is much still to do with the bill. I hope that ministers will take those legitimate concerns on board and not remain blinkered in their approach to rural Scotland. While I support the bill in general terms, I would ask for amendments to be allowed to go through. Thank you. We now move to the closing speeches. I call David Stewart. Around six minutes please, Mr Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In 1918, in the dying days of the First World War, the country was ravaged by conflict. Our young people have been sacrificed on the battlefield and our economy was in free fall. That was the context in which the Forestry Commission was born, with the aim of replanting, rebuilding and renewing a crucial asset that appeared impossible to replace. Of course, the idea seemed oxymoronic. How could we replace native Caledonian pine forests that were hundreds of years old? However, in the 1920s and 1930s, those foresters have all did what they have said on the tin. They replanted our forests with fast-growing and mainly, though not exclusively, non-native species. We all know that the picture is very different today. Our living forests play a number of roles in climate change mitigation, industry and construction, job creation, biomass, housing, leisure and biodiversity. That is why the debate is so important today. The new bill, as we have heard, includes devolwng forestry to Scottish ministers, and it is my hope that the bill will offer the opportunity to better integrate forestry with other rural land uses in Scotland. We must recognise the important economic benefits from forestry, so often it is rural areas that are the most vulnerable. As the Hounds and Islands MSP, that is very close to my heart. However, forestry offers us much more as well. As other members have said, it provides leisure spaces, carbon sequestration, flood mitigation, arosum reduction, water quality improvement, timber production and a biodiverse habitat for many of our native species. Many of our native woodlands provide a home for adverse species in Scotland, whose population has been in decline. It is not just the forestry that we need to improve, but the quality as well. Increased tree planting for the sake of that is not enough. It must be in the right area and the right tree species, or it could do more harm than good. In their excellent briefing, MSPB makes the point that biodiversity and environmental benefits are not always fully interlinked and must be kept separate in order to support both. That is true of both rural and urban areas. The word forestry brings to mind acres and acres of trees, but it does not cover tree planting in urban areas, which is very important in terms of increasing green spaces, which of course can help mental and physical health of local communities. While the powers are moving to Scottish ministers, it is vitally important that the skills and knowledge of the current forestry commission staff are maintained. The very nature of forestry involves long-term planning, and many of our man-made ancient forests only exist because of the forward thinking of our forebearers. As the Greek proverb goes, a society goes great when old men and women plant trees who shade they know, they will never sit in. I thought that it was an excellent debate that started by the cabinet secretary who stressed the importance of sustainable management of forests and new commissioning and funding across the UK to expand future timber. I also welcomed the strategic timber fund, and I am sure that the cabinet secretary will say a bit more in the wind-up on that issue. If I picked him up correctly, I think that a goal of more community ownership of around 700 acres was planned. I think that Edward Mountain made an excellent speech as a convener of the Recky committee. It was quite rightly talked about increasing the skills and keeping the skills of foresters, a long-term strategy with objectives and review, and more clarity around definitions. I did agree with the points that he made. I clearly also think, and a common theme among members was let's get the IT systems right. How many times in this Parliament have we touched on a new IT system that has failed? Let's get this right. Again, I thought that Peter Chapman made a number of points that I would agree with about an amendment of the bill through the cross-border work on tree health, which is vitely important, and a review of progress on planting, expansion and time scales must be reported to Parliament at an appropriate stage. Rhoda Grant set the context of the devolution of the Forestry commission, and again, a common theme was the important role of the creation of the chief forestry role, which will effectively fight the corner of foresters within the Scottish Government. However, it is crucially important, as Rhoda Grant said, to look at the social economic role of forestry and the needs of local community. Stuart Stevenson, as always, was entertaining. He talked about his time fighting the First World War, or maybe I misunderstood that, about the important role of Timber played in the First World War. I made the interesting point that he counts as one and a half members within the SNP group, and nobody in the Parliament has ever doubted his important role. John Scott rightly raised the point of having clarity about definitions and looking at the definition of community bodies. Overall, I thought that that was a first-class debate, and we know the big picture that the forestry industry needs stability to allow it to invest and to grow to ensure that it thrives for future definitions. It needs knowledge, and I would restate my earlier point. Although civil servants are specialists in what they do, it is important that the knowledge that is held by foresters within the current commission is not lost. On behalf of the five trade unions that represent the Forestry Commission, I would appreciate that the cabinet secretary could assure me that the skills of the first in which the world will be maintained and the unions representing the staff will be fully engaged with union negotiations about all aspects of staff transfer. Labour's position is clear. We support the general principles of the Forestry and Land Management Bill and I urge all members to support. I welcome the opportunity to close my party in this debate as a member of the Rural Economy and Fair Work Committee and also an MSP representing an air that contains valuable public forestry, especially on the Isle of Arran. I have a vested interest in the successful outcome of the bill, but it is also clear listening from the speeches today that there is still some work to do as this bill progresses through the Parliament. If I could first point towards the committee recommendations, which include a number of pertinent points, for example the need for the Scottish Government to provide clarity on how it will administer its forestry functions, the proposal, for example, of the creation of a chief forestry position, something that those benches support, that the bill should have an overarching aim, objective or indeed a mission statement, what should the bill seek to achieve and what should be the long-term outcome as a result of this organisation, that the costs of the rebrand are minimised where possible and that the financial reporting and audit functions available to this Parliament with the current bodies must carry forward with the new structure, transparency must prevail, scrutiny must be forthcoming and accountability must not be diluted as a result of this integration. My colleague Peter Chapman noted in his contribution today the importance of ensuring that we work together with other parts of the UK to ensure the health of our trees and that the wealth of expertise within the current forestry commission is not lost with the implementation of this bill. David Stewart reiterated that point in his closing. It is welcome today to hear from the cabinet secretary that cross-border co-operation will continue in a formal setting. These benches welcome the constructive approach taken by all Governments in this issue. But Mr Chapman also made a pertinent point around planting targets and our ability to meet future targets as we know that planting targets have been missed every year since 2001. If we are to meet targets then we must have an honest and frank debate on the planning process and the costs of planting. My colleague Finlay Carson highlighted in his speech two areas of concern which many members spoke about today, the lack of clarity over key definitions and the expansion of compulsory powers. I hope that the Government will take into account the constructive comments that were made by the committee and individual members on some of those definitions. I also welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to listening to the concerns over additional compulsory powers. Rhoda Grant made an interesting point in her speech around some of the scenarios whereby those compulsory purchase powers might be required. However, it is our understanding that the Government already has sufficient compulsory purchase powers which we are happy to roll forward from the 67 act where relevant to forestry. However, the ambiguity and concerns over purchase for sustainable development must be taken into account. The committee by majority agreed on a position that no case had been made for additional powers. Mike Rumbles reflected that in his own comments too. My colleague John Scott warned against this Parliament producing purely drafted legislation. I value his experience in scrutinising bills in that place and I agree with the sentiment of his speech. However, he also thanked the Forestry Commission for their hard work to date. I am sure that that is something that we would all agree on. I would like to turn briefly to some of the other contributions that were made in today's speech. To our huge surprise, Presiding Officer Stuart Stevenson delivered a fascinating insight into the history of forestry in Scotland. We were also reminded of his previous ministerial importance in this matter and indeed in any matter. However, we today learned that he is also worth 1.5 of a normal MSP, so we are forever grateful for his enlightening and indeed inflated presence in the Parliament. He did make a very interesting point, however, on the structure of Hollywood committees. My own experience of committees in the Scottish Parliament has been overwhelmingly positive. John Finnie pointed out an interesting point on the needs of small businesses in the forestry sector, and especially those deriving social benefit from Scotland's forests. He seeks reassurances and confirmations that the grants will be protected and it is good to hear the cabinet secretary confirm that today. My committee colleague Gail Ross pointed out the huge amount of scrutiny that has gone into the bill at this stage alone. And thanks to the many stakeholders who have provided us fascinating evidence, I think that it is a testament to the scrutiny that this Parliament is giving to this bill, a bill that will ultimately see the disappearance of a well-respected body in Scotland's rural landscape. Unfortunately, not entirely consensual, I think that another committee colleague John Mason, uncharacteristically in my view, painted quite an unwarranted make-up of the rural economy committee. To my knowledge, no member has a declared interest in forestry and every member of the committee has approached this bill with nothing more than goodwill and good intent. I think that the suggestion otherwise is quite charlish in my view, and I hope that he might reflect on his comments on that. Colin Smyth raised the valuable point on the creation of new national parks in the south of Scotland. I think that that is something a debate that will no doubt continue outside the remit of this bill. Angus MacDonald touched on the importance of deer management in Scotland. Again, something that we have talked about in great detail in this Parliament and made the point that as we create new woodland and it is right to do so, we also increase or may increase the deer population. Perhaps again, a debate for another day. If I may close by asking the cabinet secretary to reflect on the following points, let's address the issue of definitions in this bill. Let's create a bill that is watertight and completely lacks ambiguity. Let's take heed the majority recommendation on compulsory purchase powers being excluded from this bill. Let's take on board our suggestion on a chief forester and the role of that. Let's ensure that the success of the Forestry Commission to date in Scotland has much been its neutrality and its expertise and we would hate to see that lost as those changes are implemented. The Forestry Commission Scotland brand is a strong one. I would implore the cabinet secretary to see if the UK body might allow that brand to continue under licence in Scotland. That may be something to consider. With billions of pounds of gross value at stake and the environmental and social benefits that Scotland's forespring it is vital that any concerns raised today are taken on board as we progress to stage 2 of this bill. Thank you. I now call for a gushewing. Around nine minutes please, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I've thoroughly enjoyed this debate. I think it's been an excellent debate from across the chamber and very largely a consensual one as Mr Greene has just said. And a reference has been made to Mr Stevenson's contribution. Of course it was Roald Dahl who wrote The Serious Tales of the Unexpected and I often think that Mr Stevenson's contribution are a sort of parliamentary equivalent of those excellent fictional works. In today's episode somewhat extended I thought seemed to concern the great Michael. I thought he was maybe taking the Michael but it was about the making of the Michael. But there was a point there as always and that was the huge importance of forestry throughout a number of centuries to Scotland not just of late. And I wanted to just to say before going on to answer as many of the key points as possible I'm afraid I can't answer them all but I am committed to and would like to take part in bilateral meetings with representatives of each of the other parties prior to stage 2 if they wish in order to see if we can make progress prior to stage 2 I find that a good way of working with colleagues and that my door is open if you wish to take that offer please do take it up quickly. I also hope that stage 2 can be a collaborative exercise working together to improve the bill and there are a scope there is scope for improvement which I recognise although I think it is substantially sound. I want to reply to I think some of the main points and starting off with organisational structures and road of grants and many others raised this. The new structures Presiding Officer preserve the current distinction between Forestry Commission Scotland and Forest Enterprise Scotland and as I think Gail Ross clearly pointed out that FCS is becoming a dedicated forestry division responsible for grants, regulations, support and development and Forest Enterprise Scotland already Presiding Officer and the agency is becoming a forestry and land Scotland an executive agency of Scottish ministers responsible primarily for management of Scotland's national forest estate. David Stewart and Rhoda Grant mentioned the importance of the staff as did other members I think from the Conservative ranks as well. They are absolutely right. One of the pleasures I had over the summer was visiting all of the conservancies in Scotland with senior representatives of the Forestry Commission including Scotland's Forestry Commission on Joe O'Hara who is here in the debate listening to the debate this afternoon and that allowed me to see it first hand just how dedicated the staff are and how they regard it as a calling not just as a job but a calling and I hope that I was able to provide some assurance and clarification about what we all want from this bill which is greater accountability transparency and greater focus if I may say so on forestry than has been possible when the accountability is so diffuse at the current time I am very happy to confirm and respond to Mr Stewart and Ms Grant in particular that the expertise will not be lost the staff transfer to the Scottish Government will maintain the strong public sector role in forestry policy and delivery we will minimise disruption to staff and we will help to ensure business continuity and indeed I have had numerous meetings lengthy meetings with the trade union representatives and they have been extremely productive and I could also mention that the cabinet office statement of practice called COSOC applies when staff are transferred between civil service departments so I mentioned that because it's important to stress how we value the staff in the commission and forest enterprise and the work that they do we of course need to increase the pace and scale of tree planting to meet our ambitious annual planting targets we are making good progress towards this in response I think it was Mr Chapman who or could have been Mr Mountain I'm sorry about the speed and the process and the protracted nature of the process of obtaining permissions we did address that of course by asking the former chief planner of Scotland Jim McKinnon to look at the whole process expert as he is in that area he came up with I think 21 recommendations which we've accepted they will all be implemented or largely implemented by the end of this year and I think there has been a substantial buy-in to the process that he set out so I think that that progress has been welcomed and Stuart Goodall said I'm heartened to see pragmatic workable proposals to ensure we finally achieve the tree planting rates necessary to deliver the sector's full potential I would also point out that Scotland has in the last year been responsible for 70% of new tree pl