Seòmar agus comataidhean

As I think that you will acknowledge, circumstances can change. We are now in a cost of living crisis, which I do not think that you anticipated when you put forward your determination of charges. Given that ministers effectively overruled that determination last year—and one would hope that they give the same consideration this year—is it not the case that, when circumstances change, you should change, too, or have you had a discussion with ministers about revising their objectives?

Given that you acknowledge—I think—that you have no power to demand what you were demanding in your letter of 3 February, will you withdraw that letter? If ministers, who ignored what you said last year, ignore you again and come down on the side of householders, is it not the case that it really is up to ministers, and not you, to act?

I will certainly try, convener.

My question is for Scottish Water. Last year, you listened to the minister and reduced the charge increase from 6.2 to 4.2 per cent. As I have said, the Water Industry Commission wrote to you on 3 February to try to unpick that. The consequence of that might be that you could impose eye-watering rises of something like 14 per cent on households and businesses, all of which are pedalling harder, and I would like to hear a commitment from you today that an above-inflation price rise is off the table and that a price freeze remains open for consideration.

Yes, indeed, convener, and thank you very much for the time afforded to me at the committee. My apologies that I could not be with you when you last considered the petition.

As well as a statement, I also have some questions for the minister. To be frank, I do not doubt the minister’s good intentions, but the issue is that those good intentions are at odds with the direct experience of the petitioners. I acknowledge that the minister’s language was very careful; I think that she herself recognises that there is scope for improvement.

At the heart of this is the difference between what existing legislation and guidance says and the reality of the implementation of that on the ground. Let me be candid: people are not seeking permission to fell ancient woodland—they are just doing it. Reports have been made to Scottish Forestry, but enforcement action has not been taken. Reports have made to councils and they have been asked to put in place tree preservation orders, but, a year on, that has not yet been done. Does the minister accept that that all demonstrates that the existing framework is insufficient in terms of its practical implementation?

I hear what the minister and her official have been saying about what is coming—there is NPF4, the biodiversity strategy and other work—but there is a sense of urgency here that I am not sure is fully appreciated, because we are losing ancient woodland. There was very little of it left to start with and we are losing it at pace, so I am genuinely concerned about the timescale for this. I would therefore urge immediate action that could be taken now, while we are waiting for all the things that are coming down the track.

I very much welcome the register of ancient woodlands; nobody would dispute the value of that. I hear that it is starting in the summer but I did not hear from the minister when it will be completed, which is the key issue.

The committee was shown—and I am sure that the minister has seen—the images of non-native species such as conifers invading and effectively destroying ancient woodlands. The minister spoke about investing in removal. Just yesterday, the Scottish Wild Land Group reported its concerns about the Highlands, in particular, and modern commercial forestry practice. It said:

“There is also the ever-increasing problem of non-native conifers, particularly Sitka spruce, seeding out of these plantations and beginning a takeover of the wider landscape. If no action is taken, in a hundred years or so the hills will no longer be open moorland but transformed into spruce forest.”

We have heard about New Zealand removing non-native conifers, where they have seeded in ancient woodlands and elsewhere. The minister spoke about investing in removal. What is the scale and pace of that? My fear is that what is being done is simply insufficient.

Finally, but perhaps most importantly for me, is the impact on local communities. Tax haven companies, such as Gresham House, are taking advantage of the tree-planting programmes that are encouraged by the Government in Scotland. They are about tax avoidance funds for wealthy clients, not preserving the environment. Those companies outbid local communities for land. Farmers are concerned about the loss of productive land, and haulage lorries thunder through small roads in tiny villages, but their concerns are simply swept aside. Therefore, I was really encouraged to hear the minister’s comments about ownership, management and co-development. Those are absolutely the right sentiments, but I need to know what, practically, is going to happen. There was no mention of that in any legislation. Will you give communities the right to buy on a first-refusal basis before any of those companies come in? Those are the practical things that might make a difference.

Without fail, everybody agrees that ancient woodlands are particularly important for Scotland and that they contribute to our biodiversity. Nobody disagrees with any of that. It is clear to me that there is a need for a much more robust action to match the minister’s and Government’s good intentions, so that we actually see that work on the ground. That is not just about legislation and guidance, but about enforcement action.

I am grateful to the committee for considering the petition and to the minister for taking the time to respond today.

Is there new science?

I entirely accept that. However, what I want is a degree of transparency about where the decisions are based on risk, where they are based on new science and where they are based on lobbying by stakeholders. I think that that is important information. If we do not have it, you could find yourself in a situation in which you could be destroying livelihoods and protecting the wrong area, which would be a disaster in everybody’s book.

Allan Gibb said that, where there is a risk-based assessment, you would obviously rely on what stakeholders say. However, as far as I can see, your stakeholders have said that the measure is wrong. Why have you not listened to them?

Why does the new proposal exclude historical areas of cod spawning? As I understand it, you have removed 28 per cent of the area. I do not understand how that is a precautionary approach when you have no evidence to justify that.

Okay. However, an academic said to me that the size of the most important area “mysteriously reduced by almost half”. Why would it be “mysterious” if, as you say, it is an evidence-based decision?

I am still unclear whether that was a result of lobbying and representations that were made or of actual scientific evidence. It strikes me that it was the former.

I will move on to my final question. At the end of January, there was a stakeholder meeting with Marine Scotland in which you were specifically asked whether the measure could be reviewed. Marine Scotland’s response was that it could not, because it had no resources to do so. What has changed? What form will the review take? Will it be done before 2023? Will it be done this year, so that it can inform what happens next?