���˿���

I will say at the outset that I agree with many of the points of principle behind quite a few of Mercedes Villalba’s amendments in this group, and I am happy to have conversations ahead of stage 3 about how to take some of these matters forward. However, there are a few issues with some of the amendments.

I agree with the principle of what Mercedes Villalba is trying to achieve in amendment 11, which is to deal with the root cause of the problem. However, if the amendment had the effect that it appears to seek, it would increase the complexity and bureaucracy of new forestry projects. It would also see a duplication of some of the existing processes that are carried out by Scottish Forestry. Deer management planning and assessing the landscape impact of deer fencing are an intrinsic part of planning forestry projects, and they are funded through the forestry grant scheme. The amendment also does not define what characteristics distinguish a deer fence from any other type of fence, which is important, because the amendment would not apply to a fence of similar dimensions that was erected for any other purpose.

However, amendment 11’s main flaw is that it fails to address the fact that more general permitted development rights allow the erection of any fence or enclosure for any purpose, and those would not be affected by the amendment. On top of that, any amendments that we might seek to make to permitted development rights would be made appropriately via statutory instrument informed by a public consultation, rather than through the primary legislation route. I am happy to discuss, ahead of stage 3, how we might address the issue, and I therefore ask Mercedes Villalba not to press the amendment.

On amendment 13, we recognise the vital role that trees and woodlands play in enhancing urban communities. We have supported and continue to support urban woodlands through the forestry grant scheme. We fund partnership initiatives such as the Forth, Clyde and Fife climate forests, and we are committed to exploring how best to align our collective resources and funding to support the important work of planting more trees across our towns and cities. Amendment 13 is therefore unnecessary, given that so much work is already under way in that area. If Mercedes Villalba is content not to move the amendment, I am happy to meet her to discuss how we can best support that important area of work.

Amendment 78, in the name of Ariane Burgess, is the same amendment that was lodged at stages 2 and 3 of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill. The amendment was not accepted then, and the reasoning that I provided at that time still stands today. Given that forestry support provided under the 2024 act extends far beyond woodland creation alone, the amendment would place an unreasonable duty on Scottish ministers. The current forestry grant scheme was subject to public consultation and was developed following direct stakeholder engagement. Those same principles will apply as forestry support is developed under the powers of the 2024 act. Scottish Forestry is also working to improve and strengthen community engagement in forestry decision making and to ensure that the application processes for forestry support and regulatory approval are aligned with the principles of the land rights and responsibilities statement and associated guidance. Therefore, I ask Ariane Burgess not to move amendment 78.

On amendment 79, the impact of deer populations on our natural environment is an issue, as I have mentioned. I agree with the principle that we should deal with the cause and not the symptom. The issue is already being explored by Scottish Forestry and NatureScot in order to see how future forestry support can be targeted to reducing deer numbers rather than just erecting fences. However, the amendment fails to take account of the fact that landscape-scale deer management is a complex cross-ownership issue that takes time to resolve. Cutting off funding for deer fencing would risk the establishment of new woodlands and natural regeneration, which could result in a swing towards the planting of more browsing-tolerant species such as Sitka spruce, which are less palatable, and I do not think that Ariane Burgess or others would appreciate that. The amendment would also disadvantage tenant farmers, small landholders and crofters, because it would not prevent deer from spreading on to tenanted land. For all those reasons, I ask her not to move amendment 79 today, and I ask the committee not to support it if it is moved.

I will consider amendments 80 and 84 to 86 alongside amendments 158, 161, 163 and 164, because they are almost identical in effect and differ only slightly in their wording. The amendments seek to put additional duties on ministers to “impose conditions on” or refuse planting schemes that are submitted for approval where there is a risk of invasive tree seed spread, particularly from commercial forestry.

Amendment 163 seeks to impose a requirement to remove non-native tree seed spread from adjacent land and for Scottish ministers to assess the risk of seed spread and implement measures to prevent it. Not all natural regeneration on adjacent land presents equally, and the type of land and its use will determine its suitability. Any interventions need to be context and site specific, which the amendments do not take into account. I am aware of the negative impacts that tree regeneration can have on sensitive habitats such as peatlands, but it is a legacy issue and the amendments relate only to new woodlands. The issue of unwanted tree regeneration pertains mostly to legacy issues from forest design and planting before the introduction of the United Kingdom forestry standard, so focusing on new woodland creation would have little impact on some of the legacy issues that we have seen, particularly those on peatland.

Amendments 80 and 163 also pose a significant legal implication for land access rights. Scottish ministers do not currently have power of entry on to land for such purposes, so setting a condition on an approval for a planting scheme that requires accessing neighbouring land to remove tree seedlings without adequate powers of entry is unrealistic and likely to cause disputes. I am happy to discuss how we might address the principle behind the amendments between stages 2 and 3, to ensure that the issues can be addressed effectively and proportionately. Therefore, I ask Mercedes Villalba not to move them, to allow that discussion to take place.

On amendments 81, 82, 83, 159, 160 and 162, I reassure Mercedes Villalba that the requirements that she is seeking to add through those amendments are already in place and are reflected in daily practice in the forestry sector. The amendments seek to change the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018 by introducing measures to increase native woodland and biodiversity; however, those things are already covered by the UK forestry standard. As I mentioned before, under the 2018 act, Scottish ministers have a statutory duty to promote sustainable forestry management. Therefore, Scottish Forestry and Forestry and Land Scotland must comply with the UK forestry standard at all times, which makes the proposed legislative changes unnecessary. Keeping the requirements in the forestry standard rather than putting them in primary legislation means that we have the flexibility to reflect any scientific advances as well as site-specific conditions. That approach enables land managers to deliver measures that best support ecological coherence, rather than applying rigid specifications elsewhere. I would be happy to discuss how we might address the principles of the amendments at stage 3. I therefore ask Mercedes Villalba not to move them.

I agree with the principle behind amendment 87, but the amendment is not necessary, because the outcomes that it is seeking are already supported through the forestry grant scheme, which functions under retained European Union law. Amendment 87 would place a duty on ministers to duplicate existing support mechanisms, which would be needlessly complex and expensive.

Amendment 88 further seeks to amend financial support under the 2018 act to prohibit the funding of exotic conifer plantations. I appreciate the concern that was raised by Tim Eagle, but no payments or grants are currently available under the 2018 act for the creation or expansion of such plantations. However, that is not to say that the act might not be used in that way in the future. In September, we published a new list of productive tree species, which was developed through extensive collaboration between Scottish Forestry, Forest Research and a wide range of partners. Ultimately, an amendment of this type would disincentivise the use of almost every conifer species that is on the new list. Amendment 88 is problematic in that it could restrict the species that are used in future plantation forests in Scotland. Ultimately, that could have the effect of limiting the diversity of Scotland’s forests, decreasing their resilience and negatively affecting their adaptability to climate change. With all of that in mind, I ask Mercedes Villalba not to move her amendment 88. If it is moved, I ask the committee not to support it.

Amendments 304, 304A and 304B are similar to amendment 58, which has already been discussed in group 6. These amendments would go even further and would apply the criteria to all publicly funded woodland creation, not just to conifers. The amendments would make an even greater number of forestry projects, particularly the expansion and natural regeneration of native woodland, more expensive and unreasonably bureaucratic. Ultimately, that would result in a two-tier system, because the amendments would apply only to publicly funded woodland creation. Publicly funded projects such as many farm, croft and community woodlands would be subject to more onerous administrative and financial requirements than woodland creation that had been funded through private investment.

There is also a perception that, due to the low number of EIAs that are carried out each year, somehow, the process is failing. However, as I pointed out during the development of the ARC act, the opposite is true: hundreds of projects are screened under the regulations each year. Due to the hard work that is put in ahead of submission, most schemes are well designed to mitigate environmental risks before they are screened. The responsible due diligence by land managers and their agents ahead of regulatory engagement is, ultimately, what we would all want to see.

All new planting schemes in Scotland that exceed 20 hectares are already subject to screening assessments under the Forestry (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017. Strict thresholds have been set out in regulations for where, particularly in sensitive areas, EIA screening is always required. The cumulative aspect of amendment 304 would also disproportionately affect native woodland expansion, because small, native plantings or natural regeneration that is used to expand existing native woodland could trigger the threshold, even down to the smallest projects.

Amendment 304A lists deep peat soil as being 50cm deep, which is the depth that is used in the UK forestry standard, by NatureScot and in the national planning framework.

Ultimately, I remain satisfied that the current EIA process is sufficiently robust, and for those reasons I strongly oppose the amendments and ask Mercedes Villalba not to move them. If they are moved, I ask members not to support them.

A lot of the issues that you have raised were picked up through the committee’s scrutiny of the decisions that have been made on our surveillance capabilities. I want to make it clear today that, alongside all the value-for-money considerations, we have enhanced capabilities through the new MOU and the additional surveillance equipment and technology that we are using in comparison with what we had previously. However, I am more than happy to set out more of that information and respond to the committee with it.

I turn to amendment 266 from Maurice Golden—there are amendments from Ross Greer that are relevant to this area, too. Scotland’s fishing industry is subject to high levels of regulation and monitoring, and there are already penalties to encourage compliance. We have already committed to conducting a fisheries penalty review within our 10-year fisheries management strategy during the next session of Parliament. However, any penalties review that we undertake will be complex. We need meaningful engagement and to undertake due diligence to prevent any unintended consequences.

My concern with amendment 266 is that the deadline that it sets out is unrealistic and does not consider the resources that would be required and the scoping work that we would need to undertake to determine reasonable timeframes. However, I am willing to work on amendment 266 with Maurice Golden ahead of stage 3 to see whether we can come to an agreement on a more realistic plan. I ask him not to move amendment 266 on that basis.

Subject to reworking amendment 266 ahead of stage 3, Ross Greer’s amendments would introduce a commitment to a timescale for a review to take place. Although I have a lot of sympathy for some of the issues that he has flagged and I understand the concerns that he has expressed today, I do not support his amendments.

We need to consider the proposals as part of the wider review that we have talked about. We need to undertake due diligence and have operational certainty, and to guard against the unintended consequences and quite piecemeal changes that the amendments would introduce. We need to look at all of this more holistically. For those reasons, I ask Ross Greer not to move his amendments in this grouping. If he does, I urge the committee not to support them.

We had the commitment within our wider strategy, bearing in mind that that is a 10-year strategy, but I appreciate the time in the cycle that we are at. On the offer that I have made to Maurice Golden regarding his amendment 266, I am not saying that we should push this further down the road and not do any work on it. A 12-month timescale is unrealistic, because it means that work would have to stop and we would have to redetermine what priorities we were taking forward. I am keen to do work ahead of stage 3 to consider what a realistic timescale could look like, to ensure that there is certainty for members about what can be done.

A few of Ross Greer’s amendments take a bit of a piecemeal approach, whereas we need to look at the issues holistically. That involves a lot of work. I want to make sure that we continue with that work and see progress, which is why I have made a commitment to Maurice Golden. I am more than happy to involve Ross Greer in those conversations, if that is helpful.

Yes, I think that we can work on the amendments to get them workable. I want to be clear that I recognise the severity of the situation relating to salmon in Scotland. Through our strategy and implementation plan, the Government has undertaken a number of pieces of work to address the number of pressures that are impacting our salmon populations.

Emma Harper’s amendments are important, because we need to have effective penalties in place. That is why I am keen to ensure that the amendments are workable at stage 3. I want to make that clear to committee members so that there is no doubt about it. If Emma Harper is happy not to press or move her amendments, I will work with her to ensure that we get amendments that are workable.

Yes.

I believe that I have already made that commitment to members tonight. I want to ensure that the amendments are workable and that we do not have disparity, which is why I am keen to work with Emma Harper on them.

I have finished making my points.

I will give way.

On Tim Eagle’s amendment 324, the Scottish ministers have been clear that there is no contradiction between producing food and doing it in a way that works for the climate and nature. There are many examples of that, including organic farming and silvoarable agroforestry. Amendment 324 would put those areas in conflict. It also fails to recognise the importance of non-prime agricultural land—including our grasslands, which are the source of our dairy and livestock production—to Scottish agricultural output.

Given the devastating impact that climate change will have on prime agricultural land, not just in Scotland but around the world, we need to ensure that we continue to maintain our productive capacity in Scotland, while also ensuring that we meet our climate obligations. The biodiversity crisis also requires action on all landscape types so that Scotland can maintain the functioning ecosystems that our food production relies on. Amendment 324 would prevent that, and it is for that reason that I encourage members not to support it.

On Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 289, I appreciate her enduring interest in the important topic of rural crime, not least the theft of machinery and equipment from rural businesses. I am aware that Rachael Hamilton has been having discussions with my ministerial colleague Siobhian Brown, who has stated that the Scottish Government would be happy to work with her on a legislative solution to replicate the key points in the UK Government’s Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023, although we recognise that that would need to be done after the election. I reiterate that commitment to the committee. Given that the UK Government is still to implement the 2023 act, before we introduce legislation, it seems prudent to wait to see whether we can learn any lessons from that implementation and whether we can gain anything by considering the UK Government’s early experience with enforcement.

Clearly, the theft of equipment will affect the ability of a rural business to carry out its core tasks, such as food production, but a statutory review such as the one that is proposed in amendment 289 could be revisited in the future, as we consider the next steps in preventing the theft of equipment, which I recognise has a hugely detrimental impact on our rural communities. For those reasons, I ask Rachael Hamilton not to move amendment 289.

The issue that is covered by amendment 290 is a matter of interest in my constituency, so I want to make it clear that I appear before the committee today in my capacity as a Scottish Government minister. The position that I am representing reflects the Scottish Government’s collective view and concerns a matter of law and policy for which I have ministerial responsibility. Separately, and in line with the Scottish ministerial code, I have made my views and those of my constituents known to the responsible minister in the most appropriate way. The issue that is under discussion today is distinct from that constituency interest, and my contributions should therefore be understood as reflecting the Government’s position, not a personal or constituency-specific stance.

Ultimately, the key point about amendment 290 is that it would cut across work that is already under way, and it is important that I highlight that work. Collectively, the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments have commissioned the National Energy System Operator to produce a strategic spatial energy plan, which will set out a long-term view on the optimal type and location for energy generation and transmission across Great Britain on a zonal basis. Throughout its development, the plan will integrate environmental considerations, including by considering other uses for land, such as food production. The plan will be accompanied by a strategic environmental assessment, which will consider the likely significant environmental effects of the plan, and by a habitats regulation assessment.

That is not the only on-going work in this area. It is also important to highlight the on-going work to develop a new land use strategy, the consultation on which closed recently, in October. The upcoming strategy will set out our approach and intentions regarding land use integration, including in relation to renewable energy, how we understand and articulate current land use and how we should consider future land-based priorities.

For the reasons that I have set out, although I am sympathetic to the issues that Rachael Hamilton has raised, I cannot support amendment 290.

I am sorry, but I want to finish my point, because I think that it would address Douglas Ross’s point, too.

We are going to publish a paper on the future farming investment scheme, which should address some of the concerns that have been raised by Douglas Ross and other members and help with an understanding of the overall assessment process. For those reasons, I ask the committee not to support the amendments.