Hansard

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.