³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Okay. I am happy to rest on that.

An interesting theme arose in discussion with the petitioners at the previous meeting when we discussed potential comparators for the kind of protection that they would like for ancient woodland. The listed buildings programme and scheduled ancient monuments arose as a basis for considering how a new scheme of protection could be introduced instead of protection simply being from an SSSI, which might require a significant burden of evidence about particular horticulturally, scientifically or biologically significant characteristics. In effect, the forestry could simply merit protection on the basis that its amenity is important to the community or that it is known as an ancient woodland of native species rather than any other requirements.

Is there an opportunity to consider something akin to the scheduled ancient monuments programme or listed buildings programme under which communities could nominate for consideration areas of woodland that they want to be protected? When the listing system and protections for built heritage were introduced in the 1960s, it required a national survey, which was done by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, to identify the national list of protected sites. Perhaps a similar survey could be undertaken for woodlands, given the national scale the pressure that is faced. Perhaps that could be an interesting benchmark to consider.

I am sympathetic to the petitioner’s request, as I think that the additional member system is rubbish—but there we go.

Thank you very much.

That is very helpful. You are calling for mandatory reporting. You described the way that you were treated, which was appalling. It was almost gaslighting. Will you describe what you think mandatory reporting should look like? How would it play out? What would it be like in your ideal scenario?

I have been quite taken aback by the testimony today, as I think that we all have. It is obviously disappointing to hear the Government’s position on this. On the suggestion that the Scottish Government might consider addressing future recommendations made by the inquiry to improve legislation, policy and practice, do you think that will be sufficient to address any of the concerns that have been raised in your petition, or do you feel that that would not come close to dealing with the issue? Is there at least some element of what the Government is saying that might be helpful, or do you think that it is not adequate at all?

No—but I could elaborate.

I suggest that we also write to each of the local authorities to get an assessment of what their current provision is. It might be helpful to get an understanding of how each local authority manages the provision of sex education in their schools. Some schools will have teachers who are specially trained, while in some areas, there might be a team that goes round different schools. It would be interesting to find out what each local authority is doing, and that might help to inform the petitioner.

Thanks. I should clarify that the Woodland Trust has identified that most pockets of ancient woodland each cover fewer than 5 hectares; they are isolated fragments and do not cumulatively provide coverage across Scotland.

Our two petitioners talked about enforcement of tree preservation orders, citing a case in Argyll that was particularly problematic. There are penalties for tree felling—I think that they said that the penalty is £5,000 per tree—but in this instance, enforcement was delayed. Argyll and Bute Council did not enforce the tree preservation order in a timely manner, which permitted the landowner to clear the area for grazing. The petitioners have heard that the national authority—I think that it is Scottish Forestry; sorry, I am just trying to find the right page of the Official Report—will not enforce the order and basically just came to a gentlemen’s agreement with the landowner.

That raises a concern about the extent to which there is enforcement when ancient woodland is vandalised, even when protections are in place. Do you agree that such issues need further investigation?

I think that it is also important to raise the fact that people are self-medicating with THCs already, where they have got a supply from unofficial sources. It might be worth engaging with the Minister for Drugs Policy, Angela Constance, about the pattern of illicit access to substances that are cannabis-derived products.

That might also illustrate that, where health and social care partnerships have introduced programmes such as herb-assisted treatment, it is actually seen as a public health benefit that people are medicating themselves in that way, as it is much more satisfactory that people do that in a controlled environment. Perhaps there is an angle that is not simply about the context of prescribing by a general practitioner or a clinician but about instances in which people are already self-medicating, and recognising that there is a public health interest in ensuring that harms are reduced in that situation.