Session 2009/10

Third Report

Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

Report on
the Forestry Bill

Together with the Minutes of Proceedings, Minutes of Evidence,
Written Submissions and Memoranda Relating to the Report

Ordered by The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development to be printed 1 March 2010
Report: NIA 29/09/10R Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

Powers and Membership

Powers

The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is a Statutory Departmental Committee established in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement and under Assembly Standing Order No 46. The Committee has a scrutiny, policy development and consultation role with respect to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and has a role in the initiation of legislation. The Committee has 11 members including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson and a quorum of 5.

The Committee has power:

to consider and advise on Departmental budgets and Annual Plans in the context of the overall budget allocation;
to approve relevant secondary legislation and take the Committee Stage of relevant primary legislation;
to call for persons and papers;
to initiate enquiries and make reports; and
to consider and advise on matters brought to the Committee by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Membership

The Committee has 11 members, including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, and a quorum of five members. The membership of the Committee is as follows:

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr. (Chairperson) ⁴
Mr Tom Elliott (Deputy Chairperson)

Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Pat Doherty ¹
Mr William Irwin
Dr William McCrea ⁵
Mr Patsy McGlone ³
Mr Francie Molloy
Mr George Savage
Mr Jim Shannon ^2,6

¹ Mr Pat Doherty replaced Mr Gerry McHugh with effect from 21 January 2008
² Mr Edwin Poots replaced Mr Allan Bresland with effect from 15 September 2008
³ Mr Patsy McGlone replaced Mr PJ Bradley with effect from 29 June 2009
⁴ Mr Ian Paisley Jnr. replaced Dr. William McCrea with effect from 4 July 2009
⁵ Dr. William McCrea replaced Mr Trevor Clarke with effect from 14 September 2009
⁶ Mr Jim Shannon replaced Mr Edwin Poots with effect from 14 September 2009

Powers and Membership

Executive Summary

Recommendations

Introduction

Summary of the Draft Forestry Bill as presented to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Committee stage

Summary of Consideration and Agreed Amendments

Clause by Clause Scrutiny of the Bill

Appendix 1

Minutes of Proceedings

Appendix 2

Minutes of Evidence

Appendix 3

Written submissions relating to the Report

Appendix 4

Memoranda and Papers from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

Appendix 5

Memoranda and Papers – others

Appendix 6

List of witnesses

Executive Summary

Purpose

1. The Report details the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development’s consideration of the Forestry Bill. The Bill updates the Forestry Act (Northern Ireland) 1953.

Principles of the Bill

2. The introduction of the Bill was welcomed by the Committee who considered the principles of the Bill to be as follows:

The increase of forest cover in Northern Ireland
The recognition and exploitation of the benefits of woodland including social, economic, environmental and recreational.

3. The Committee engaged in a public consultation exercise and consulted with a wide range of stakeholders with a variety of interests. Written responses were received from twelve stakeholders and the Committee also requested evidence from a number of stakeholders who had responded to the Departmental consultation on the principles of the Bill. Oral evidence was received from:

British Association for Shooting and Conservation
Confederation of Forest Industries (CONFOR)
Council for Nature, Conservation and the Countryside
Countryside Access and Activities Network
Farm Woodlands Ltd.
Northern Ireland Environment Link
Premier Woodlands Ltd.
RSPB NI and Woodland Trust
Sport NI
Ulster Farmers’ Union
Ulster Wildlife Trust

Key Issues

4. The Committee was concerned from the outset at the absence of strategic direction within the Bill, mindful that the purpose of the previous two Acts had been the production of timber in post-war periods. The Committee held a strong belief that this Bill offered the opportunity for a strategic and enhanced use of the forest estate.

5. The Committee considered that the key issues relating to the Bill were as follows:

Recognition of the recreational, social, economic and environmental aspects of forests
Compulsory acquisition
Woodland Inventory
Powers to enter private land to control animals or vegetation
Fees for felling licences

The recreational, social, economic and environmental aspects of forests

6. The Committee was concerned that clause 1 of the Bill as drafted did not go far enough in recognising the wide spectrum of benefits of woodland. The Committee felt that there was insufficient progression from the 1953 Act which concentrated on timber production. The Committee wished to see a more dynamic approach adopted in this clause whereby the benefits of forestry were explicitly recognised on the face of the Bill and wished to see a duty placed on the Department to develop and promote all these benefits.

7. The Committee sought to have the Forest Service’s current and future strategic plans designated in the legislation, in order that a greater level of substance could be provided against the principles espoused in the Bill. The Committee believed that this would allow the Department and other Executive Departments to make strategic use of the Bill in respect of other priorities, such as health issues, environmental commitments, flood protection and recreation. The Committee also wished that emphasis be placed on sustainable development in order that resources can be developed for current and future generations.

8. The Department agreed to redraft clause 1 in cognisance of the Committee’s concerns. The Department also agreed to the Committee’s request that they develop a Delivery Plan which would translate the Department’s duty with respect to forestry into actions on the ground. Finally, the Department agreed to the development of a Programme for Government target that would allow for cross-cutting issues to be included in any future Delivery Plans.

Compulsory Acquisition

9. The Committee expressed significant concerns in relation to clause 5 as drafted which granted powers to the Department to acquire land compulsorily for the purposes of carrying out any of its functions. The Committee considered that these powers were too wide and requested further details of when such powers may be used. The Department advised that such powers would be necessary in the event of lack of or limited access to forestry land.

10. The Committee advised that they wished the issue about use of the powers in relation only to access to be explicitly stated in the face of the Bill. The Committee also strongly expressed the view that compulsory acquisition should only be used as a tool of last resort and that negotiation with private landowners should always be the first approach in such situations where access is an issue.

11. The Department offered assurances that compulsory purchase powers would only be exercised where all other means of resolution, including negotiation with the landowner and other temporary rights of access had failed. The Committee heard arguments from the Department about why such powers were necessary but remained concerned that the Department should ensure that other options for temporary right of access should be fully explored. The Department did therefore respond with a redrafted clause which stated that that its use of compulsory acquisition was a power for a limited period or otherwise to emphasise that limited life acquisition options would be considered.

12. In the interests of transparency, the Committee requested that the Department make an agreement to publish the Departmental guidelines for acquisition of land on its website in order that these guidelines can be accessed by the public.

Woodland Inventory

13. In light of the Department’s target of doubling woodland and the policy of encouraging the development of afforestation in the private sector, the Committee considered it imperative that the Department provide a commitment to compile and maintain an inventory of all woodland in Northern Ireland, both public and private. Such an inventory should provide baseline information to allow for effective planning for the future. The Committee considered that this inventory was vital and should be a commitment clearly stated in the face of the Bill.

14. The Department agreed to carry out such an inventory at intervals it thought appropriate. While the Committee welcomed this commitment in the face of the Bill, they requested that intervals for publication of this inventory be set and the Department agreed to establish a baseline within the first year and subsequently to publish the inventory at intervals not exceeding ten years.

Powers to enter private land to control animals or vegetation

15. The Committee expressed concerns over the powers which the Department sought in clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill with regard to control of animals and removal or destruction of vegetation on adjoining land.

16. The Committee expressed concerns at the content of clause 9 as presented, as the Department were seeking powers to enter private land to control animals, mainly deer, deemed to be damaging trees on Departmental land and to charge the private landowner for the control of animals on their land. The Committee regarded the imposition of such charges as unacceptable. The Forest Service were unable to produce evidence to the Department indicating the extent of this problem and in addition recognised damage to Forest Service property by animals on adjacent land was negligible. The Committee requested that the Department take powers to introduce this power by affirmative resolution when the evidence base was available to indicate that there was a problem. This clause is now in dormant form within the Bill and will be empowered only by affirmative resolution to the House.

17. The Department did agree to implement an enabling clause which would allow it the discretion to legislate for control of animals and for imposition of attendant fees on landowners if and when the situation should arise as part of its general duty to protect woodland with regard to the duty towards sustainability.

18. The Department also proposed the insertion of a new clause which would relate to the control (with permission of occupier) of animals on land adjacent to forest. This clause is based on a purely consensual approach and allows the Department to request that the occupier of land adjacent to forest takes steps to prevent damage to adjoining woodland, failing that the Department would request permission to take action to control the animals but has no power to enter without permission.

19. This clause allows the Department to retain the ability to protect woodlands from damage by wild animals but addresses the concern expressed by the Committee regarding the necessity of agreement with landowners.

20. With regard to clause 10 (Removal or destruction of vegetation on adjoining land), the Committee again wished to emphasise that negotiation with the landowner to remedy the problem should be the first option.

21. While the Committee accepted that buffer zones to act as fire breaks were necessary to protect a public investment in forestry, it expressed the view that creation and maintenance of fire buffer zones should be an integral part of any management plans for Forest Service owned land.

22. The Committee also asked that the Department ensure that the requirement to remove or destroy vegetation on adjoining land would not place the landowner in breach of any other departmental schemes, such as the Northern Ireland Countryside Management Scheme. The Department has provided assurances that penalties will not be imposed in circumstances where they require a landowner to remove vegetation in order that forestry assets are afforded appropriate protection.

Fees for felling licences

23. Part Three of the Bill presented a number of concerns for the Committee, in particular regarding clause 20 which deals with the introduction of fees for a proposed felling licence scheme. The Committee expressed strong opposition to the imposition of fees which it viewed as a disincentive to those considering entering the forestry industry and as a means of imposing a competitive disadvantage on those involved in commercial forestry compared to operators in the rest of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland.

24. In light of the Committee concerns, the Department agreed not to introduce fees for felling licences. However, given the Department operates a policy of “full cost recovery", it did retain the power to introduce fees at a later date through agreement by the Assembly under affirmative resolution.

Recommendations

25. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development fully recognises the benefits of forests and woodlands to the economy, to recreation and tourism, to the environment and to local communities, both rural and urban. The Committee believes that in creating this Bill, an opportunity exists to produce legislation which recognises all aspects of forestry and provides a dynamic framework to develop forests and woodlands in order to deliver benefits to the people of Northern Ireland now and into the future. In light of this, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development makes the following recommendations:

Sustainable forestry must be the key driver for all foresters and Forest Service has a vital role in engaging with woodland owners and managers and with local communities in order to provide a sustainable resource of woodlands and forests for the future.
Forest Service should work in partnership with a wide range of stakeholders and organisations in order to effectively address the issues facing forestry in Northern Ireland and to maximise the opportunities which they present to local communities, both currently and in the future. The Committee believes that a collective approach will bring added benefits and help Forest Service deliver on its targets in a more effective way. Working with delivery partners on objectives such as increasing recreational use of forests will allow Forest Service to concentrate on their core objectives while achieving shared learning.
Forest Service should work with stakeholders through their Delivery Plans in order that the expertise and specialist knowledge of a range of stakeholders with interest in the expansion and use of forestry be utilised in the development of any strategies and the setting and measurement of targets. Such work would facilitate discussions and policy development on maximising the social, economic and environmental benefits offered by forests.
Forest Service should consider initiating a Forest Challenge Scheme to encourage local community involvement in woodland projects for example, educational or recreational initiatives. This Challenge Scheme should look at innovative means of ensuring that other Executive Strategies, for example the Child Obesity Strategy, are incorporated into these initiatives.
Forest Service should seek to develop innovative ways to promote the benefits of forests and to increase community involvement. For example:
in the use of woods as resources for education – using outdoor spaces for learning, informing young people about sustainable forestry and combating climate change, exploring biodiversity and outdoor activity;
in the development of partnership working with local councils or business delivery partners in opening forests to recreational activities;
in facilitating community-led projects where local communities, both rural and urban are seeking to develop tourism, recreational and economic opportunities - assisting in the establishment and maintenance of trails in forested land, thereby increasing physical activity, tourism income and employment opportunities in local communities;
in encouraging volunteering activity on Forest Service owned land - thereby assisting Forest Service in managing projects; increasing community involvement and providing volunteers with the opportunities to gain skills and enjoy the health and social benefits of volunteering.
Forest Service must recognise that economic viability is a key factor in the decisions of farmers considering entering into forestry or those commercial growers currently operating in the sector and must tailor grants and funding accordingly.
Forest Service must strive to ensure that the role of forests in wider land management, for example in flood management, species conservation, water quality improvement and mitigation of climate change, is communicated to local communities, stakeholders and government Departments so that the value of woodland and forests be included in decision making and planning in a proactive manner.
Forest Service should seek to be proactive in maximising the benefits of forestry and should strive to be a pioneer in innovative forest management. Any plans developed should be dynamic in nature to allow adaptation to changes in local environments, economic circumstances and commercial opportunities.
The contribution of commercial forestry to the economy in Northern Ireland must be recognised and Forest Service should work to promote the use of wood and timber products in Northern Ireland and beyond in order to strengthen existing markets and source new market opportunities for local forestry businesses. Increasing the supply of timber available in Northern Ireland is vital in order to support the wood processing sector.

Introduction

26. The Forestry Bill was introduced to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 29 June 2009. The Assembly debated the principles of the Bill in the Second Stage on 15 September 2009 when the Bill was passed for consideration to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. The Committee sought and received the approval of the Assembly in Plenary Session to extend their consideration and scrutiny of the Bill to 2 March 2010.

27. The Bill contains 39 clauses and 2 schedules and updates the Forestry Act (Northern Ireland) 1953.

28. The Committee launched a public consultation exercise seeking input from interested individuals and organisations. Those groups that had previously provided input to the consultation exercise conducted by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development were not obliged to resubmit their evidence to the Committee.

29. In total twelve written evidence submissions were received. On consideration of this evidence, and the Departmental response to concerns raised by these organisations, the Committee called a number of these organisations, and others who had submitted evidence to the Department’s consultation exercise to present oral evidence to the Committee at a number of evidence sessions held in Parliament Buildings as well as Castlewellan Forest Park, Co. Down.

Summary of the Draft Forestry Bill as Presented to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Committee Stage

Part One: Functions of the Department

Clause 1 – General duty of the Department

30. This clause places the Department’s duty to promote forestry on a wider footing than the traditional primary role of developing afforestation, the supply of timber, and the maintenance of reserves of growing trees. This had been the emphasis in the 1953 Act. Clause 1 recognises that modern forestry places equal importance on protection of the environment and social and recreational use.

Clause 2 – Principal powers of the Department

31. This clause covers a wide spectrum of the main powers of the Department to engage in and support the afforestation of land and woodland industries.

Clause 3 - Provision of facilities on forestry land

32. Clause 3 empowers the Department to provide a wide range of facilities to improve the amenity of forestry land. The Department may wish to charge for certain facilities, such as the use of an interpretative centre, or car-parking. However, this can only be done with the approval of the Department of Finance and Personnel.

Clause 4 - Use or development of forestry land

33. Clause 4 will provide a power for the Department to develop its land to obtain better value from the public estate – for example the use of wind farms or the development of tourist facilities on forestry land. On the surface, this is a wide-sweeping power, but it has a safeguard in that the Department in exercising this power must have due regard to its general duties to promote forestry as described in clause 1.

34. The Department is already committed through the UK Forestry Standard and the UK Woodland Assurance Standard to credible standards of sustainable forest management. Furthermore, any development will have to be in line with the Environmental Impact Assessment (Forestry) Regulations (NI) 2006

Clause 5 - Compulsory acquisition of land

35. This clause will give the Department powers to acquire land compulsorily- a feature of Forestry legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland. This will be a useful power for the Department, particularly where timber ready for harvesting is landlocked and no agreement on access to it is possible. The Department will be required to follow the process for vesting in the Local Government Act (NI) 1972, including the serving of a notice of its intention to make a vesting order, the allowing of representation, provision of compensation, and right of appeal to the Lands Tribunal

Clause 6 - Inquiries, information, etc

36. There is provision for the Department to carry on inquiries and collect and disseminate the results, including the preparation and publication of statistics, for the purposes of any of its functions under the Act, including the promotion of forestry. The Department may exploit any intellectual property arising from these activities, including the provision of instruction and the undertaking of research under section 5 of the Agriculture Act (Northern Ireland) 1949 and may enter into arrangements with bodies outside Northern Ireland which carry out similar activities.

37. An offence is created for failure to comply with a request to provide or permit the collection of any information

Clause 7 – Incidental Powers

38. The powers in this clause to engage in partnerships or to participate in a body corporate are intended to support the Department in maximising opportunities for the optimum delivery of all of its functions. The Department will have a power to develop its land to obtain better value from the public estate – for example to allow for the creation of wind farms, the development of tourist facilities and participation in partnership arrangements with the private sector and other bodies. The Forestry Strategy envisages partnerships as a means to accommodate more active or high value pursuits in support of wider government objectives for sport and tourism, and enhancement of the environment.

Part Two: Protection of Forest Trees from Damage

Clause 8 – Control of Animals in Forests

39. Clause 8 permits the occupier, in the event of damage by wild animals to growing trees, to cull such animals at any time.

Clause 9 - Control of animals on land adjacent to forests

40. Clause 9 gives the Department a power to require owners of land to prevent likely or actual damage to adjacent forests by wild animals present on their land; and in the event of non-compliance an authorised officer may take such action

Clause 10 - Removal or destruction of vegetation on adjoining land

41. Clause 10 provides for the Department, where vegetation on uncultivated land adjoining a forest poses a fire risk, to serve a notice on the occupier of the uncultivated land requesting that any vegetation within a 15 metre boundary of the forest should be removed or destroyed. If the occupier fails to comply within 4 months of the date of service of the notice, an authorised person may remove or destroy the vegetation.

Clause 11 - Protection for persons acting under section 8, 9 or 10

42. Woodland owners, or the Department’s authorised officers, taking action under clauses 8, 9 or 10 may find themselves open to prosecution under the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 or the Game Preservation Act (NI) 1928. For example, hares present a threat to growing trees, and their culling is prohibited during closed season under sections 7 and 7A of the Game Preservation Act (NI) 1928. Likewise, deer can damage trees, and their culling is prohibited during closed season under section 19 of The Wildlife (NI) Order 1985. Furthermore, the killing of certain wild animals is prohibited under Article 10 and Schedule 5 of the Wildlife Order. The removal or destruction of vegetation under clause 10 has potential implications for sections 10 and 14 of the Wildlife Order because of possible threat to places of shelter or protection, and the uprooting or destruction of certain wild plants.

43. While both the Wildlife Order and the Game Preservation Act offer some exceptions for the protection of woodlands and growing timber, the Department decided that the Forestry Bill should have a clear and unambiguous protection against prosecution under such legislation, and indeed any unforeseen amendments to it. For this reason clause 11 offers a protection for persons acting under section 8,9 or 10

Clause 12 - Burning of vegetation

44. A person wishing to burn vegetation within one and a half kilometres of a forest under different ownership is required to give to the forest owner notice of between 14 and 31 days.

45. An offence is created for failure to comply with this requirement.

46. Following receipt of the notice, a forest owner may serve a counter notice objecting to the proposed burning as it may cause damage. A person who burns vegetation in contravention of the requirement for notice or after receiving a counter notice is liable for any damage caused to the forest

Clause 13 - Protection of forest trees, etc from pests

47. This provision amends the Plant Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 to provide powers to make subordinate legislation to control the tree disease risk posed by wood packaging

Part Three: Felling of Trees

Clause 14 - Requirement of licence for felling

48. The felling restrictions have a threshold of 0.2 hectares because the Department’s Forest Service wishes to regulate forests and woodlands, rather than be a steward of individual trees, which are already covered by Tree Preservation Orders under Planning legislation. The threshold was also set because this area matches the minimum area for planting grants under existing Forest Service planting grant schemes.

49. There is a wide spectrum of exemptions from the requirement for a felling licence, ranging from trees in gardens, public parks, fruit trees, and small trees. An exemption at clause 14(2) (e) (ii) is for “where the aggregate cubic content of the trees which are felled by that person without a licence does not exceed 5 cubic metres in any quarter". To get a sense of what this means, 5 cubic metres equates to one large oak tree.

50. An offence is created for any person who fells trees where an exemption does not apply and where no licence has been obtained.

51. There is provision for the Department to serve a restocking notice where it appears that an offence has been committed (clause 21 – Power of Department to require restocking after unauthorised felling).

Clause 15 - Application for felling licence

52. The application for felling licences will be prescribed in subordinate regulations. It is expected that the application will include: details of the location and area of trees to be felled, a map showing the woodland, special features or restrictions such as Tree Preservation Orders or ancient monuments, and the regeneration or other plans for the felled area, and any other information required by the felling management plan. The management plan must be agreed by the Department and the process may involve an inspection by a forest officer of the area to be felled.

53. The Department will charge a fee to cover its administration costs, and the cost of the inspection (clause 20 – Fees in connection with felling licence)

Clause 16 - Compensation on refusal of felling licence

54. Any compensation payable will be based on the depreciation of the value of trees attributable to deterioration in the quality of the timber as a result of the refusal of a felling licence. Disputed compensation will be dealt with by the Lands Tribunal.

Clause 17 - Operation and conditions of felling licence

55. A licence of not less than 5 years will be granted subject to a felling management plan for the land in question, and may specify the timing of felling, the restocking of the land and other conditions. Regulations may provide for details on the form, content and amendment etc of management plans.

Clause 18 - Deferred decision on an application for felling licence

56. There is provision for the Department to give notice to an applicant within 3 months, or within a further agreed time, or the application will be deemed to have been refused.

57. If it appears that the applicant does not have an estate in the land and could not therefore comply with conditions of a licence, the Department may postpone consideration of the application until the relevant person has become a party to the application.

Clause 19 – Appeal against decision of Department on application for felling licence

Clause 22 – Appeal against restocking notice

Clause 24 – Appeal against enforcement notice

58. There is provision for appeal to a person appointed by the Department under clause 25 in respect of an applicant: (a) who has been refused a felling licence or who has been aggrieved by the conditions attached to a felling licence; (b) upon whom a restocking notice has been served who objects to the notice or to any of its requirements; or (c) to whom an enforcement notice is given in relation to a felling licence or restocking notice who considers that the conditions of either the licence or the restocking notice have been complied with (clause 23 – Notice to require compliance with felling licence conditions or restocking notice) or that the steps required by the enforcement notice are not required for compliance with either the licence or the restocking notice.

59. On appeal the appointed person may confirm the decision of the Department regarding the application, the restocking notice or the enforcement notice, or direct the Department to issue the felling licence subject to certain conditions, or modify any existing conditions, or modify or withdraw a restocking notice or an enforcement notice.

60. An offence is created for failure to take the steps required by an enforcement notice

Clause 20 - Fees in connection with felling licences

61. Power to levy fees

Clause 25 - Appeals under this Part

62. An appellant under clause 19, 22 or 24 is entitled to have an appeal determined by a person outside the civil service who has been appointed by the Department. The manner and timing of making an appeal and the procedures to be followed in connection with determining an appeal are to be prescribed by regulations

Clause 26 – Identification of trees

63. There is provision for the Department to mark trees or require identification of trees in certain circumstances, such as where they must be clearly identified by an applicant for a felling licence. For clear felling only the boundary trees need to be marked

Clause 27 – Regulations as to applications, claims and notices

Clause 28 – Application of this part to Crown land

64. Crown land is not excluded from Part 3. However, the grant of a felling licence will not extend to the imposition of conditions on any felling licence granted or to the issue of a restocking notice without the consent of the Crown Estate Commissioners, in the case of land belonging to Her Majesty or the consent of a government Department in the case of land belonging to that Department. The full requirements of Part 3 apply to any estate which is within Crown land and which is for the time being held otherwise than on behalf of the Crown

Clause 29 – Interpretation of this Part

Part Four: Miscellaneous and Supplementary

Clause 30 - Public right of access to, and byelaws for, forestry land

65. Clause 30 bestows a statutory right for pedestrian access to all forestry land. This access will of course be limited in some instances, for example, where there are forestry operations, or environmental sensitivities. The clause allows the Department to make byelaws to restrict access, and indeed, to regulate the reasonable use of forestry land by visitors

Clause 31 – Powers of entry

66. Clause 31 provides for an authorised person, on production of his authority, to enter any land for the purpose of exercising any functions of an authorised person under the Act and to enable the Department to carry out any of its functions under the Act. In addition, a person entering land may take other persons and equipment as necessary e.g. for the purpose of monitoring numbers of wild animals

67. A number of controls are included:

The time of entry must be reasonable;
24 hours notice must be given to the occupier, or less if the occupier agrees;
The authorised person must produce his authority, if requested;
A lay Magistrate’s warrant is required where entry is refused or where the land is unoccupied and the circumstances are urgent e.g. in a case of extensive damage being caused to forest land by wild animals on land adjacent to the forest;
There is no authority for entry to a dwelling house;
There is a duty on those entering the land to leave it secure;
If any damage is caused compensation may be recovered from the Department.

68. The powers of entry are extended under Schedule 1, Compulsory Acquisition of Land, to include surveying or examining land with a view to acquiring it compulsorily, or in connection with a claim for compensation in respect of such an acquisition

Clause 32 – Obstruction of officers, etc

69. Any person who intentionally obstructs an officer of the Department or an authorised person in the exercise of any function under the Act is guilty of an offence

Clause 33 – Prosecutions under this Act

70. The time limit for bringing court proceedings for certain offences is 6 months beginning from the date on which sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution is known to the Department. No proceedings may be brought more than 2 years after the offence. The Court Service has been advised of this provision and is content

Schedule 1 – Compulsory acquisition of land

Schedule 2 - Repeals

Summary of Consideration and Agreed Amendments

Clause 1 – General Duty of the Department

71. The Committee wished to have clause 1 redrafted by the Department to include its duties in respect of promoting sustainable forestry and with regard to the recreational and social benefits of forests. In section 2 of this clause, the Committee also recommended that reference be clearly made to the contribution forests have in relation to biodiversity and the mitigation of climate change. The Committee was eager to see a clear duty to encourage use of Forest Service land by the public.

72. The Department responded with a redrafting of section 1 of clause 1 and an additional section 2 which clearly refers to the environmental benefits of forests.

73. The Committee expressed a desire to have a clear commitment from Forest Service to implementing various strategies in relation to forestry. The Committee suggested the development of a clear Delivery Plan which would translate Forest Service strategies into actions which could be effective in delivering on Departmental and stakeholder objectives. The Committee considers that it is vitally important that Forest Service give due consideration to relevant strategies from other government Departments, for example the Strategy for Sport and Physical Recreation, Investing for Health Strategy, Promoting Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy, urban and rural planning strategies etc. in order that the diverse range of benefits of forestry can be exploited through the delivery of future plans.

74. The Department provided a commitment to produce a delivery plan in respect of the general duties in clause 1. In addition, the Department provided a commitment to develop a cross-cutting Programme for Government target to allow other Executive strategies to exploit the opportunities provided by Northern Ireland forests.

Clause 5 – Compulsory Acquisition of Land

75. The Committee strongly expressed the view that compulsory acquisition of land should be a method of last resort for the Department and expressed concern that the clause as drafted was too vague in relation to the circumstances in which the Department may wish to use such powers. While the Committee recognised the importance of access in order to draw value from a public asset, either through timber sales or development of recreational opportunities, negotiation with the landowner should be the first means of gaining access.

76. The Department responded with a redrafted clause which clearly states that the powers of compulsory purchase would only be used in connection with the provision or improvement of access to land.

77. The Committee also recommended that the Department should establish a clear flowchart of actions in such cases of no or limited access which should exhaust all other available options, (e.g. temporary leasing) before utilising compulsory acquisition.

78. The Department responded advising that they do utilise internal procedures which require attempts to reach agreement with landowners as first option. The Office of the Legislative Council was of the view that no Department would ever opt for compulsory acquisition except as a matter of last resort. The Department did however, respond with a redrafted clause which stated that the use of compulsory acquisition was a power for a limited period or otherwise to emphasise that limited life acquisition options would be considered.

79. In the interests of transparency, the Committee requested that the Department make an agreement to publish the guidelines for acquisition of land on its website in order that these guidelines can be accessed by the public.

80. In light of this agreement from the Department and with consideration to the protections available under existing domestic legislation, for example the principle of “Wednesbury Reasonableness" and Judicial Review, and the additional protections available under Human Rights Legislation which require the Department to act always in a reasonable and proportionate way and to adopt the approach of least interference to the landowner , the Committee recognised that the powers within the clause were sufficiently fettered.

Clause 6 – Inquiries, information etc.

81. The Committee recommended that the Department should carry out a comprehensive inventory of woodland in Northern Ireland, collating information available through other Departmental data sources and work carried out by other organisations. The Committee is of the view that such an inventory is vital in order that realistic targets for the expansion of woodland can be set and for effective monitoring and evaluation. It believes that planning for the future must be founded on a sound evidence base through research.

82. The Department responded with a proposal to provide and maintain a register of woodland and publish when the Department sees fit.

83. While the Committee welcomed the inclusion of the intention to compile an inventory in this clause, it expressed a desire that the Department proscribe a time frame for review of the inventory.

84. The Department responded with a redrafted clause which states that the Department would review the inventory at a minimum interval of ten years, while maintaining the inventory as a live document which would be updated each year with the information which comes to the Department through various schemes and attendant applications.

Clause 8 – Control of animals in forests

85. The Committee recommended that Forest Service redraft this clause in order to clarify and clearly define what was referred to as ‘wild animals’ and to include an exemption for the Irish hare. The Committee also expressed concern that the Department proposed the taking of animals ‘at any time’, giving rise to concerns about animal welfare, specifically in relation to the killing of deer in the closed season. The Department agreed to amend this clause to remove this phrase.

Clause 9 – Control of animals on land adjacent to forests

86. The Committee expressed concerns at the content of this clause as presented, as the Department were seeking powers to enter private land to control animals deemed to be damaging trees on Departmental land and to charge the private landowner for the control of animals on their land. The Committee regarded the imposition of such charges as unacceptable. The Department accepted the Committee’s concerns however wished to retain the discretion to recover costs from landowners who derive benefit from any intervention. The Department gave reassurance that in such instances where a requirement to control animals on adjacent land arose, the first approach would be to request that the landowner takes action themselves.

87. The Forest Service were unable to produce evidence to the Department indicating the extent of this problem and in addition recognised damage to Forest Service property by animals on adjacent land was negligible. The Committee requested that the Department take powers to introduce this power by affirmative resolution when the evidence base was available to indicate that there was a problem. This clause is now in dormant form within the Bill and will be empowered only by affirmative resolution to the House.

88. The Department did agree to implement an enabling clause which would allow them the discretion to legislate for control of animals and for imposition of attendant fees on landowners if and when the situation should arise as part of their general duty to protect woodland with regard to the duty towards sustainability.

Additional clause - Control (with permission of occupier) of animals on land adjacent to forest

89. In light of Committee concerns regarding powers of the Department to enter private land to control animals on adjacent land, the Department drafted a new clause for the Bill which is based on a purely consensual approach. This clause requesting the occupier of adjoining land to take effective steps to prevent the damage to adjoining woodland; however, failing this the Department may request permission to control the animals, but has no power to enter without that permission. The clause contains no power to impose any costs on the adjoining landowner, even if, on agreement, the Department controls any animals on his land.

90. This clause allows the Department to retain the ability to protect woodlands from damage by wild animals but addresses the concern expressed by the Committee regarding the necessity of agreement with landowners.

Clause 10 – Removal or destruction of vegetation on adjoining land

91. The Committee considered that the Department must clearly define ‘vegetation’ and what is implied by the term ‘uncultivated’ land in order that adjoining landowners in receipt of Departmental grants were not adversely affected by the actions required by Forest Service. The Committee again wished to emphasise that negotiation with the landowner to remedy the problem should be the first option.

92. While the Committee accepted that buffer zones to act as fire breaks were necessary to protect a public investment in forestry, it expressed the view that creation and maintenance of fire buffer zones should be an integral part of any management plans for Forest Service owned land.

Clause 15 – Application for felling licence

93. In light of concerns expressed by stakeholders around the complexity and time frame for application and granting or refusal of licences, the Committee requested from the Department that they develop a Charter Standard Statement which would clearly set out the process for application for a felling licence and would provide clear guidance and information regarding timeframes and the service which any applicant could expect from Forest Service, as well as explanation of the means of complaint and/or appeal. The Department agreed that such a Charter Statement would form part of their Delivery Plans as discussed under clause 1.

Clause 17 - Operation and conditions of felling licence

94. In order to address concerns expressed by stakeholders about the value of ancient woodland, the Committee pressed the Department for a commitment to protect ancient woodland when considering any felling management plans for such areas. An example of the information required to populate the management plan is contained in Appendix 4.

95. The Department responded with insertion of a reference to the desirability of maintaining ancient woodland.

Clause 20 – Fees in connection with felling licences

96. This part of the Bill presented a number of concerns for the Committee, namely the introduction of fees for a proposed felling licence scheme. The Committee expressed strong opposition to the imposition of fees which it viewed as a disincentive to those considering entering the forestry industry and as a means of imposing a competitive disadvantage on those involved in commercial forestry compared to operators in the rest of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland.

97. In light of the Committee concerns, the Department agreed not to introduce fees for felling licences however did retain the power to introduce fees at a later date. However, prescription of fees may only be instigated through agreement by the Assembly, and affirmative resolution.

Clause 30 – Public Right of Access to, and byelaws for, forestry land

98. The Committee received representation from a number of groups seeking to extend these powers to allow for a statutory right of access beyond pedestrians to include cyclists, horse riding and carriage driving.

99. The Committee agreed that to open up all forestry land in this manner would pose significant public health and liability issues and could result in a significant pressure on the Department’s budgets.

100. However, the Committee sought, and received, assurances that the above activities were included within the definition of "recreational" contained at clause 2 of the Bill and that these would be developed, and identified in the Delivery Plans.

Clause by Clause Scrutiny of the Bill

Clause 1 – General Duty of the Department

101. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development recommends to the Assembly that clause 1 be amended as agreed between the Committee and the Department and that the Committee agrees to the text of the amendment.

Clause 2 – Principal Powers of the Department

Clause 3 - Provision of facilities on forestry land

102. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clauses 2 and 3 as drafted

Clause 4 - Use or development of forestry land

103. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development recommends to the Assembly that clause 4 be amended as agreed between the Committee and the Department and that the Committee agrees to the text of the amendment.

Clause 5 - Compulsory acquisition of land

104. That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clause 5 subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department.

Clause 6 - Inquiries, information, etc.

105. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clause 6 subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department.

Clause 7 - Incidental powers

106. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clause 7 subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department.

Clause 8 - Control of animals in forests

107. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clause 8 subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department.

Clause 9 - Control of animals on land adjacent to forest

108. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clause 9 subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department.

Additional clause - Control (with permission of occupier) of animals on land adjacent to forest

109. That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is agreed to the insertion of a new clause (Control (with permission of occupier) of animals on land adjacent to forest) after clause 8 of the Bill subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department.

Clause 10 - Removal or destruction of vegetation on adjoining land

110. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clause 10 subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department.

Clause 11 - Protection for persons acting under section 8, 9 or 10

111. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clause 11 subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department.

Clause 12 - Burning of vegetation

Clause 13 - Protection of forest trees, etc. from pests

Clause 14 - Requirement of licence for felling

Clause 15 - Application for felling licence

Clause 16 - Compensation on refusal of felling licence

112. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clauses 12 to 16 as drafted.

Clause 17 - Operation and conditions of felling licence

113. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clause 17 subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department.

Clause 18 - Deferred decision on an application for felling licence

Clause 19 - Appeal against decision of Department on application for felling licence

114. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clauses 18 and 19 as drafted.

Clause 20 - Fees in connection with felling licences

115. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clause 20 as drafted.

Clause 21 - Power of Department to require restocking after unauthorised felling

Clause 22 - Appeal against restocking notice

Clause 23 - Notice to require compliance with felling licence conditions or restocking notice

Clause 24 - Appeal against enforcement notice

Clause 25 - Appeals under this Part

Clause 26 - Identification of trees

Clause 27 - Regulations as to applications, claims and notices

Clause 28 - Application of this Part to Crown land

Clause 29 – Interpretation of this part

Clause 30 - Public right of access to, and byelaws for, forestry land

Clause 31 - Powers of entry

Clause 32 - Obstruction of officers, etc

Clause 33 - Prosecutions under this Act

116. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clauses 21 to 33 as drafted.

Clause 34 – Regulations

117. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clause 34 subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department.

Clause 35 – Interpretation

Clause 36 - Application to the Crown

Clause 37 - Amendments and repeals [j24]

118. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clauses 35 to 37 as drafted.

Clause 38 - Commencement

119. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clause 38 subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department.

Clause 39 – Short Title

120. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clause 39 as drafted.

Schedule 1

Schedule 2

121. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with the Schedules 1 - 2 as drafted.

Long Title

122. The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with the long title as drafted.

Appendix 1 Minutes of Proceedings

Tuesday 22 September 2009
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Ian Paisley Jnr. (Chairperson)
Tom Elliott (Deputy Chairperson)
George Savage
Willie Clarke
Thomas Burns
Patsy McGlone
Jim Shannon
William Irwin
Dr William McCrea

In attendance: Paul Carlisle (Clerk to the Committee)
Shauna Mageean (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Paul Stitt (Clerical Supervisor)
Mark O’Hare (Clerical Supervisor)
Erika Graham (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Pat Doherty

1.33 pm The meeting commenced in Open Session

1. Apologies

As above.

2. Minutes

The Committee agreed the Minutes of the meeting of 15 September 2009.

The Committee welcomed Mark O’Hare to the Committee Support Office.

1.36 pm Willie Clarke entered the meeting

3. Matters arising

(a) Correspondence issued

The Committee noted the correspondence issued since the meeting of 15 September 2009.

(b) Correspondence received

The Committee noted the correspondence received since the meeting of 15 September 2009.

4. Presentation – DARD – Committee Stage of the Forestry Bill

David Small and Stuart Morwood, departmental officials, joined the meeting at 1.38pm and presented to Committee in respect of the Forestry Bill. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

1.55 pm Jim Shannon entered the meeting

2.33 pm Thomas Burns entered the meeting

2.36 pm George Savage left the meeting

2.36 pm William Irwin left the meeting

2.36 pm Thomas Burns left the meeting

2.42 pm George Savage rejoined the meeting

2.44 pm William Irwin rejoined the meeting

The Committee agreed that the Chairperson place a motion with the Assembly to extend the Committee Stage of the Forestry Bill to 2 March 2010.

2.45 pm The officials left the meeting

5. Presentation – DARD – Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Animal Welfare Bill

Colette McMaster, Kate Davey, John Terrington and Paddy McGuckian, departmental officials, joined the meeting at 2.46pm and presented to Committee in respect the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

2.48 pm Jim Shannon left the meeting

2.51 pm Jim Shannon rejoined the meeting

3.04 pm George Savage left the meeting

3.09 pm Willie Clarke left the meeting

3.21 pm Tom Elliott left the meeting

3.22 pm George Savage rejoined the meeting

3.28 pm Willie Clarke rejoined the meeting

3.33 pm Patsy McGlone left the meeting

George Savage declared an interest

3.35 pm Patsy McGlone rejoined the meeting

3.37 pm William McCrea left the meeting

3.40 pm Thomas Burns rejoined the meeting

3.50 pm Tom Elliott rejoined the meeting

3.53 pm Jim Shannon left the meeting

4.00 pm Patsy McGlone left the meeting

4.00 pm The officials left the meeting

The Committee agreed to defer the following planned agenda items until the Committee meeting of 29 September 2009

Diseases of Animals Bill – Clause 8 amendment
Presentation – DARD – Efficiency Delivery Plans

6. Presentation – Loughs Agency – SL1 Foyle Area and Carlingford Area (Control of Oyster Fishing) (Amendment) Regulations 2009

Paul Moore, Derek Anderson, Barry Fox and Ciaran McGonigle, departmental officials, joined the meeting at 4.04pm and presented to Committee in respect the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

4.04 pm William Irwin left the meeting

4.10 pm William Irwin rejoined the meeting

4.16 pm Jim Shannon rejoined the meeting

4.24 pm William Irwin left the meeting

4.26 pm Thomas Burns left the meeting

4.30 pm The officials left the meeting

7. Presentation – Lough Foyle Oyster Sub-Committee (LFOSC) and Whiskey Rock Fisheries Ltd. – SL1 Foyle Area and Carlingford Area (Control of Oyster Fishing) (Amendment) Regulations 2009

Paul McLaughlin, Batty Connell and Adrian Weir of LFOSC and Liam Farren of Whiskey Rock Fisheries Ltd., joined the meeting at 4.31pm and presented to Committee in respect the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

4.35 pm William Irwin rejoined the meeting

4.47 pm Barry Fox and Ciaran McGonigle, departmental officials joined the above representatives at the table

4.52 pm Tom Elliott left the meeting

5.04 pm Jim Shannon left the meeting

5.04 pm The officials and representatives left the meeting

5.05 pm The meeting was adjourned

5.15 pm The meeting was reopened

5.15 pm William Irwin left the meeting

5.15 pm Jim Shannon rejoined the meeting

5.16 pm Thomas Burns rejoined the meeting

8. Presentation – Strangford Lough Management Advisory Committee (SLMAC), North East Lobster Fisherman’s Co-operative Society (NELCO) and Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation Ltd. (NIFPO) – SL1 The Strangford Lough Exclusion Zone Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009

Caroline Nolan and Dr. Pat Boaden, SLMAC, joined the meeting at 5.16pm and presented to Committee in respect the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions. Colin Nelson, NELCO and Dick James, NIFPO joined the meeting at 5.27pm and presented to Committee in respect the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

5.20 pm Tom Elliott rejoined the meeting

5.47 pm Thomas Burns left the meeting

5.58 pm The officials left the meeting

9. Presentation – DARD - SL1 The Strangford Lough Exclusion Zone Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009

Paddy Campbell and Ian Humes, departmental officials, joined the meeting at 5.59pm and presented to Committee in respect the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

5.59 pm Thomas Burns rejoined the meeting

6.15 pm The officials left the meeting

11. AOB

The Committee noted the evidence session for the Committee Inquiry into the Dioxin Contamination Incident, December 2008 to be held in Buswells Hotel, Dublin on Thursday 8 October 2009.

The Committee agreed to issue an invitation to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries & Food at the Houses of the Oireachtas to meet on 8 October 2009 to discuss issues of relevance to both Committees.

12. Date of the next meeting

The next Committee meeting will be held on Tuesday 29 September 2009 at 10.30am in Room 152, Parliament Buildings.

6.20 pm The meeting was adjourned

Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Present: Ian Paisley Jnr. (Chairperson)
Tom Elliott (Deputy Chairperson)
Dr William McCrea
Pat Doherty
Patsy McGlone
Thomas Burns
Jim Shannon
William Irwin
Willie Clarke

In Attendance: Paul Carlisle (Clerk to the Committee)
Sohui Yim (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mark O’Hare (Clerical Supervisor)
Erika Graham (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: George Savage
Francie Molloy

10.23 am The meeting commenced in closed session.

1. Dioxins Report

Members agreed amendments to the first draft of the Report into the Dioxins Incident of December 2009.

2. Addendum to the Diseases of Animals Report

Members agreed amendments to the first draft of the Addendum to the Report on the Diseases of Animals Bill.

11.20 am The meeting commenced in public session.

3. Minutes of the last meeting

The Committee agreed the minutes of the meeting of 20 October 2009.

4. Matters Arising

(a) Correspondence issued

The Committee noted the correspondence issued since the meeting of 20 October 2009.

(b) Correspondence received

The Committee noted the correspondence received since the meeting of 20 October 2009.

5. Presentation – Woodland Trust & RSPB – DARD Committee Stage of Forestry Bill

The following officials from Woodland Trust and RSPB joined the meeting at 11.21am and gave evidence to the Committee in the respect of the above:

Patrick Cregg – Director – Woodland Trust

Lee Bruce – Government Affairs Officer – Woodland Trust

John Martin – Policy Officer – RSPB

Mike Wood – UK Forestry Advisor – RSPB

Following the presentation, Members put questions.

11.26 am William Irwin left the meeting

11.29 am William Irwin rejoined the meeting

11.34 am William Irwin left the meeting

11.37 am William Irwin rejoined the meeting

11.29 am Dr. William McCrea left the meeting

11.30 am Dr. William McCrea rejoined the meeting

Jim Shannon declared an interest

Tom Elliot declared an interest

12.12 am Ian Paisley Jnr. left the meeting

12.15 am Pat Doherty left the meeting

12.15 am William Irwin left the meeting

12.33 am William Irwin rejoined the meeting

12.37 am The officials left the meeting

The Committee agreed to allow the Northern Ireland Environment Link additional time to submit their evidence in respect of the above subject.

12.39 am The meeting was suspended

1.34 pm The meeting resumed

6. SR: The Plant Health (Wood & Bark) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2009

That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development has considered The Plant Health (Wood & Bark) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2009 and has no objection to the Rule.

7. Presentation – DARD – SL1s.

Brian Ervine and Martin Mooney, DARD officials joined the meeting at 1:35pm and presented to the Committee in respect of the following SL1s:

SL1: The Cereal Seeds Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009

SL1: The Beet Seeds Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009

SL1: The Fodder Plant Seeds Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009

SL1: The Vegetable Seeds Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009

SL1: The Oil and Fibre Plant Seeds Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009

SL1: The Seeds (Registration, Licensing and Enforcement) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009

1.36 pm William Irwin entered the meeting

Following the presentation, Members put questions.

1.46 pm Patsy McGlone entered the meeting

The Committee noted the above mentioned legislations and agreed that they should proceed to the next stage.

8. Any Other Business.

Dr William McCrea raised the issue of how to proceed on concerns around the provision of road planning in rural areas.

The Chairperson agreed to seek the Minister’s views on the matter before considering other options.

William Irwin raised the issue of final payments to farmers under the Farmer Nutrients Management Scheme.

1.53 pm Willie Clarke left the meeting

9. Date of next meeting.

The next Committee meeting will be held on 10 November at 1.30pm in Room 30, Parliament Buildings.

1.55 pm The meeting was adjourned.

Tuesday 10 November 2009
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Present: Ian Paisley Jnr. (Chairperson)
Tom Elliott (Deputy Chairperson)
George Savage
Pat Doherty
Francie Molloy
Willie Clarke
Patsy McGlone
Thomas Burns
William McCrea
Jim Shannon
William Irwin

In attendance: Paul Carlisle (Clerk to the Committee)
Shauna Mageean (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mark O’Hare (Clerical Supervisor)
Erika Graham (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: none

1.35 pm The meeting commenced in Closed Session

1. Dioxins Report

The Committee deliberated the report and approved the amendments as discussed at the meeting of 3 November. The Members requested that confirmation be sought from the Department in relation to exact figures in relation to compensation and that following receipt of that information from the Department, the report be published. Members agreed to forward a copy of the published report to the Minister.

The Committee expressed their thanks to the Committee Support Office for their work in organisation of the Committee Inquiry and in compilation of the Report.

1.36 pm Patsy McGlone entered the meeting

1.37 pm Willie Clarke entered the meeting

1.39 pm Patsy McGlone left the meeting

1.40 pm George Savage entered the meeting

1.41 pm Patsy McGlone rejoined the meeting

2. Addendum to the Report on Diseases of Animals Bill

A draft copy of the Committee Addendum to the Report on the Diseases of Animals Bill detailing the agreed amendment to Clause 8 of the Bill was tabled at the meeting. The Committee agreed the report be published and laid in the Business Office of the Northern Ireland Assembly and. Members agreed to forward a copy of the published report to the Minister.

1.45 pm Thomas Burns entered the meeting

1.45 pm The meeting opened in Open Session

3. Apologies

As above

4. Minutes

The Committee agreed the Minutes of the meeting of 3 November 2009.

5. Matters arising

(a) Correspondence issued

The Committee noted the correspondence issued since the meeting of 3 November 2009.

(b) Correspondence received

The Committee noted the correspondence received since the meeting of 3 November 2009.

1.49 pm Tom Elliott left the meeting

1.52 pm Jim Shannon entered the meeting

6. Presentation – DARD – Update against PSA Targets

John Smith, Pauline Keegan and Roly Harwood, departmental officials, joined the meeting at 1.58pm and presented to Committee in respect of the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

2.04 pm Jim Shannon left the meeting

2.12 pm Jim Shannon rejoined the meeting

2.41 pm William McCrea left the meeting

2.45 pm Thomas Burns left the meeting

2.48 pm Thomas Burns rejoined the meeting

2.52 pm Thomas Burns left the meeting

3.03 pm Patsy McGlone left the meeting

3.08 pm Patsy McGlone rejoined the meeting

Francie Molloy declared an interest

William Irwin declared an interest

3.25 pm Patsy McGlone left the meeting

3.25 pm The officials left the meeting

7. Presentation – Assisi Animal Sanctuary – Briefing on their work and views on the Animal Welfare Bill

Brian Bingham, Margaret Sinnott and Felicity Huston, representatives of Assisi Animal Sanctuary, joined the meeting at 3.26pm and presented to Committee in respect the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

3.35 pm Thomas Burns rejoined the meeting

3.53 pm Jim Shannon left the meeting

4.09 pm The representatives left the meeting

8. Forestry Bill – Oral Evidence Forward Work Programme

The Committee agreed the list of witnesses to be called to give evidence in relation to the Forestry Bill. The Committee was apprised of the timetable of evidence sessions.

The Committee agreed to hold an all day evidence session on Thursday 21 January 2010 at Castlewellan Forest Park.

9. Date of the next meeting

The next Committee meeting will be held on Tuesday 17 November 2009 at 1.30pm in Room 30, Parliament Buildings.

4.12 pm The meeting was adjourned

Tuesday 24 November 2009
Senate Chamber, Parliament Buildings

Present: Ian Paisley Jnr. (Chairperson)
Tom Elliott (Deputy Chairperson)
George Savage
Willie Clarke
Pat Doherty
Thomas Burns
William McCrea
Jim Shannon

In attendance: Paul Carlisle (Clerk to the Committee)
Shauna Mageean (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mark O’Hare (Clerical Supervisor)
Erika Graham (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: none

10.38 am The meeting commenced in Open Session

1. Apologies

As above

2. Presentation – Ulster Wildlife Trust – Oral evidence in relation to the Forestry Bill

Dr. Hilary Kirkpatrick and Dr. Lucinda Blakiston-Houston, representatives of the Ulster Wildlife Trust, joined the meeting at 10.39am and presented to Committee in respect of the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

10.41 am George Savage joined the meeting

10.56 am Tom Elliott joined the meeting

11.10 am Thomas Burns joined the meeting

11.30 am Pat Doherty left the meeting

11.34 am Jim Shannon left the meeting

11.38 am Jim Shannon rejoined the meeting

Tom Elliott declared an interest

11.50 am The representatives left the meeting

11.50 am The meeting was adjourned

Tuesday 1 December 2009
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Ian Paisley Jnr. MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr Willie Clarke MLA
Mr Pat Doherty MP MLA
Mr William Irwin MLA
Dr William McCrea MP MLA
Mr George Savage MLA
Mr Jim Shannon MLA

In attendance: Mr Paul Carlisle (Clerk to the Committee)
Mrs Shauna Mageean (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Mark O’Hare (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Erika Graham (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: none

10.52 am The meeting commenced in Open Session

10.52 am The meeting was inquorate

1. Apologies

As above

2. Presentation – Council for Nature, Conservation and the Countryside – Oral evidence in relation to the Forestry Bill

Mr Patrick Casement, Chairperson and Mr Peter Archdale, Deputy Chairperson, of the Council for Nature, Conservation and the Countryside, joined the meeting at 10.53am and presented to Committee in respect of the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

11.00 am Mr Burns entered the meeting

11.00 am The meeting was in quorum

11.06 am Mr Clarke entered the meeting

11.07 am Dr McCrea entered the meeting

Mr Elliott declared an interest

11.21 am Mr Doherty entered the meeting

11.30 am Mr Elliott left the meeting

11.31 am Mr Elliot rejoined the meeting

11.38 am Mr Irwin entered the meeting

11.39 am Mr Shannon left the meeting

Mr Savage declared an interest

11.47 am Mr Savage left the meeting

11.51 am Mr Shannon rejoined the meeting

11.51 am Mr Burns left the meeting

11.57 am Mr Burns rejoined the meeting

12.01 pm Mr Savage rejoined the meeting

12.02 pm Dr McCrea left the meeting

12.02 pm The representatives left the meeting

3. Minutes

The Committee agreed the Minutes of the evidence session of 24 November 2009.

4. Presentation – Farm Woodlands Ltd. – Oral evidence in relation to the Forestry Bill

Mr Willie McKenna, Managing Director and Dr. Kathleen McKenna, Chief Administration Officer, of the Farm Woodlands Ltd., joined the meeting at 12.02pm and presented to Committee in respect of the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

12.15 pm Mr Shannon left the meeting

12.27 pm Mr Doherty left the meeting

12.40 pm Mr Clarke left the meeting

12.44 pm The representatives left the meeting

12.45 pm The meeting was adjourned

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr.
Chairperson, Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

Date

Tuesday 8 December 2009
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Ian Paisley Jnr. MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Willie Clarke MLA
Mr Pat Doherty MP MLA
Mr William Irwin MLA
Dr William McCrea MP MLA
Mr George Savage MLA
Mr Jim Shannon MLA

In attendance: Mr Paul Carlisle (Clerk to the Committee)
Mrs Shauna Mageean (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Mark O’Hare (Clerical Supervisor)
Ms Erika Graham (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: none

10.38 am The meeting commenced in Open Session

10.38 am The meeting was inquorate

10.38 am Mr Elliott took the Chair

1. Apologies

As above

2. Presentation – Sport NI – Oral evidence in relation to the Forestry Bill

10.39 am The following representatives joined the meeting.

Mr Nick Harkness - Director of Participation

Mr Mike McClure - Development Officer for Countryside Recreation

Mr John News - Community Sport Manager

The representatives presented to Committee in respect of the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

10.44 am Mr Savage entered the meeting

10.44 am The meeting was in quorum

10.52 am Mr Irwin entered the meeting

10.58 am Mr Shannon entered the meetiing

11.01 am Mr Clarke left the meeting

11.02 am Mr Clarke rejoined the meeting

Mr Elliott declared an interest

Mr Savage declared an interest

11.20 am Mr Savage left the meeting

11.28 am The representatives left the meeting

3. Minutes

The Committee agreed the Minutes of the evidence session of 1 December 2009.

4. Presentation – Premier Woodlands Ltd. – Oral evidence in relation to the Forestry Bill

11.28 am The following representative joined the meeting

Mr John Hetherington - Managing Director

The representative presented to Committee in respect of the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

11.28 am Mr Shannon left the meeting

11.35 am Mr Savage rejoined the meeting

11.43 am Mr Shannon rejoined the meeting

11.47 am Mr Doherty left the meeting

Mr Shannon declared an interest

12.08 pm Mr Paisley entered the meeting

12.09 pm The representative left the meeting

12.09 pm Mr Paisley took the Chair

5. Presentation – British Association for Shooting and Conservation – Oral evidence in relation to the Forestry Bill

12.10 pm The following representative joined the meeting

Mr Roger Pollen - Regional/Country Director

The representative presented to Committee in respect of the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

12.15 pm Mr Shannon left the meeting

12.15 pm Mr Shannon rejoined the meeting

12.28 pm Mr Clarke left the meeting

Mr Shannon declared an interest

12.33 pm Mr Elliott left the meeting

12.41 pm Mr Clarke rejoined the meeting

12.42 pm The representatives left the meeting

12.42 pm The meeting was adjourned

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr.
Chairperson, Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

Date

Thursday 21 January 2010
Grange Offices, Castlewellan Forest Park

Present: Mr Ian Paisley Jnr. MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr Willie Clarke MLA

In attendance: Mr Paul Carlisle (Clerk to the Committee)
Mrs Shauna Mageean (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Mark O’Hare (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Michael McCoy (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Pat Doherty MP MLA
Mr William Irwin MLA
Dr William McCrea MP MLA
Mr Patsy McGlone MLA
Mr Francie Molloy MLA
Mr George Savage MLA
Mr Jim Shannon MLA

The meeting commenced at 10.09am in Public Session

1. Apologies

As above

2. Presentation – Northern Ireland Environmental Link – Oral evidence on the proposed Forestry Bill

10.10 am The following representatives joined the meeting.

Professor Sue Christie OBE – Director, NIEL;

Geoff Nuttall – Head of WWF Northern Ireland.

The representatives presented to Committee in respect of the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

Mr Elliott declared an interest

11.02 am The representatives left the meeting

3. Presentation – ConFor – Oral evidence in relation to the proposed Forestry Bill

11.03 am The following representatives joined the meeting.

Stuart Goodall - Chief Executive, ConFor

Lord Hamilton – Chairman, ConFor NI

Brendan Friel - Director - Balcas Timber Ltd

The representatives presented to Committee in respect of the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

11.50 am The representatives left the meeting

4. Presentation – Ulster Farmers’ Union – Oral evidence in relation to the proposed Forestry Bill

11.51 am The following representatives joined the meeting.

Gregg Shannon - Chairman of Legislative Committee Wesley Aston – Policy Director

The representatives presented to Committee in respect of the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

12.24 pm The representatives left the meeting

12.24 pm The meeting was adjourned

12.28 pm The meeting reopened

5. Presentation – Countryside Access & Activities Network – Oral evidence in relation to the Forestry Bill

12.28 pm The following representatives joined the meeting.

Dr Caro-lynne Ferris – Executive Director

Dawson Stelfox – Chair of CAAN and Board Member

Brian Murphy – Director on Board

The representatives presented to Committee in respect of the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

Mr Clarke declared an interest

1.05 pm The representatives left the meeting

1.06 pm The meeting was adjourned

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr.
Chairperson, Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

Date

Tuesday 26 January 2010
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

In attendance: Mr Paul Carlisle (Clerk to the Committee)
Mrs Shauna Mageean (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Mark O’Hare (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Michael McCoy (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Patsy McGlone MLA

10.35 pm The meeting commenced in Public Session

1. Apologies

As above

2. Minutes

Agreed: The Committee agreed the Minutes of the meetings of:

8 December 2009
19 January 2010
21 January 2010

3. Matters arising

(a) Correspondence issued

The Committee noted the correspondence issued since the meeting of 19 January 2010.

(b) Correspondence received

The Committee noted the correspondence received since the meeting of 19 January 2010.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development requesting a response to correspondence received from Mr John Henderson regarding damage to potato crops caused by bad weather.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to decline a request from Mr Kevin Taylor to present to Committee on alternatives to poultry waste incineration as the Committee have already passed a motion stating its position on this issue.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to forward various correspondence received seeking the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s views directly to the Department for their consideration.

Agreed: The Committee agreed write to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development seeking details of the terms of reference for the proposed commercial body which is to be established to replace the Livestock and Meat Commission.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development seeking an update on the Red Tape Review.

The Deputy Chairperson commented on the inadequacy of the rural proofing of roads policy and put on record his view that in order to be effective, the process of rural proofing must have a legislative basis.

4. SL1: Less Favoured Areas Compensatory Allowance Scheme 2010

10.44 am Mr Shannon entered the meeting

Mr Elliott declared an interest

Agreed: The Committee agreed the above mentioned legislation should proceed to the next stage.

5. Presentation – DARD – Revised Expenditure Plans

10.45 am The following departmental officials joined the meeting

Gerry Lavery – Deputy Secretary

John Smith – Director of Finance

The officials presented to Committee in respect of the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions

10.49 am Mr Shannon left the meeting

10.53 am Mr Shannon rejoined the meeting

10.59 am Mr Shannon left the meeting

11.00 am Mr Shannon rejoined the meeting

Mr Elliott declared an interest

The Deputy Chairperson put on record his absolute discontent that there is no money allocated for Axis 3 of the Rural Development Programme.

Mr Molloy declared an interest

Mr Savage declared an interest

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for a copy of the correspondence in relation to accessing rolled up modulation match funding.

11.48 am The officials left the meeting

6. Presentation – Forest Service – Clause by Clause Scrutiny of the Forestry Bill

11.50 am The following departmental officials joined the meeting

David Small – Chief Executive

Stuart Morwood – Director of Woodland Development and Strategies

John Joe O’Boyle – Director of Forestry

Michael McCann – Policy and Legislation Branch

The officials presented to Committee in respect of the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions

11.55 am Mr Elliott left the meeting

12.00 pm Dr McCrea entered the meeting

Mr Shannon declared an interest

12.04 pm Mr Molloy left the meeting

12.10 pm Mr Shannon left the meeting

12.19 pm Mr Elliott rejoined the meeting

12.21 pm Mr Shannon rejoined the meeting

12.31 pm The meeting was adjourned

1.34 pm The meeting reopened

1.37 pm Mr Shannon rejoined the meeting

1.38 pm Mr Molloy rejoined the meeting

1.50 pm Mr Savage left the meeting

2.00 pm Mr Elliott rejoined the meeting

2.01 pm Dr McCrea left the meeting

2.01 pm Mr Savage rejoined the meeting

2.07 pm Mr Burns entered the meeting

2.09 pm Mr Burns left the meeting

2.23 pm Mr Irwin left the meeting

2.24 pm Mr Irwin rejoined the meeting

2.37 pm Mr Burns left the meeting

2.38 pm Dr McCrea rejoined the meeting

2.39 pm Mr Clarke left the meeting

2.46 pm Mr Clarke rejoined the meeting

2.56 pm Mr Shannon left the meeting

3.01 pm Mr Molloy left the meeting

3.02 pm Mr Burns left the meeting

3.05 pm Mr Shannon rejoined the meeting

3.07 pm Dr McCrea left the meeting

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Clerk should schedule a meeting with Forest Service to discuss the clauses prior to next week’s meeting.

3.24 pm The officials left the meeting

7. Timetable for additional Committee meetings for Forestry Bill Clause by Clause scrutiny

The Committee was apprised of the schedule for additional forthcoming Committee meetings on Mondays as well as the revised timings for the Committee meeting of Tuesday 2 February 2010.

8. Date of the next meeting

The next Committee meeting will be held on Monday 1 February 2010 at 12.30pm in Room 30, Parliament Buildings.

3.29 pm The meeting was adjourned

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr.
Chairperson, Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

Date

Monday 1 February 2010
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Ian Paisley Jnr. MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr Willie Clarke MLA
Mr Pat Doherty MP MLA
Mr William Irwin MLA
Mr George Savage MLA
Mr Jim Shannon MLA

In attendance: Mr Paul Carlisle (Clerk to the Committee)
Mrs Shauna Mageean (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Mark O’Hare (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Michael McCoy (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: none

12.52 pm The meeting commenced in Public Session

1. Apologies

As above

2. Presentation – Forest Service – Clause by Clause Scrutiny of the Forestry Bill

12.53 pm The following departmental officials joined the meeting

David Small – Chief Executive
Stuart Morwood – Director of Woodland Development and Strategies
Michael McCann – Policy and Legislation Branch

The officials presented to Committee in respect of the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions

12.53 pm Mr Doherty entered the meeting

12.53 pm Mr Burns entered the meeting

1.04 pm Mr Clarke left the meeting

1.06 pm Mr Savage left the meeting

1.10 pm Mr Savage rejoined the meeting

1.10 pm Mr Burns left the meeting

1.27 pm Mr Elliott left the meeting

1.42 pm Mr Clarke rejoined the meeting

1.46 pm Mr Burns rejoined the meeting

1.47 pm The meeting was adjourned

2.13 pm The meeting reopened

2.14 pm Mr Burns rejoined the meeting

2.28 pm Mr Shannon entered the meeting

3. Date of the next meeting

The next Committee meeting will be held on Tuesday 2 February 2010 at 12.30pm in Room 30, Parliament Buildings.

2.30 pm The meeting was adjourned

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr.
Chairperson, Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

Date

Monday 8 February 2010
Senate Chamber, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Ian Paisley Jnr. MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr Willie Clarke MLA
Mr William Irwin MLA
Mr Patsy McGlone MLA
Mr Francie Molloy MLA
Mr George Savage MLA
Mr Jim Shannon MLA

In attendance: Mr Paul Carlisle (Clerk to the Committee)
Mrs Shauna Mageean (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Mark O’Hare (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Michael McCoy (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: none

12.44 pm The meeting commenced in Public Session

1. Apologies

As above

2. Round Table discussion on proposed Forestry Bill

12.45 pm The following departmental officials joined the meeting:

David Small – Chief Executive

Stuart Morwood – Director of Woodland Development and Strategies

Michael McCann – Policy and Legislation Branch

12.45 pm The following representatives joined the meeting:

Roger Pollen – Regional/Country Director, BASC

Dawson Stelfox – Chair of Board, CAAN

Rupert Pigott - Head of Policy, ConFor

Sue Christie – Director, Northern Ireland Environment Link

John Martin - Policy Officer, RSPB NI

Patrick Cregg – Director, Woodland Trust

The officials and representatives presented to Committee in respect of the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions

12.49 pm Mr McGlone entered the meeting

1.05 pm Mr Shannon entered the meeting

1.08 pm Mr Shannon left the meeting

1.09 pm Mr Shannon rejoined the meeting

1.15 pm Mr Elliott left the meeting

1.30 pm Mr Shannon left the meeting

1.36 pm Mr Shannon rejoined the meeting

1.37 pm Mr Molloy left the meeting

1.46 pm Mr Burns entered the meeting

1.51 pm Mr McGlone left the meeting

1.51 pm Mr Shannon left the meeting

1.52 pm Mr Shannon rejoined the meeting

2.06 pm Mr Elliott rejoined the meeting

2.14 pm Mr Shannon left the meeting

2.19 pm Mr Shannon rejoined the meeting

2.19 pm Mr Burns left the meeting

2.45 pm Mr Irwin entered the meeting

2.57 pm The meeting was adjourned

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr.
Chairperson, Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

Date

Monday 15 February 2010
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Ian Paisley Jnr. MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Willie Clarke MLA
Mr Pat Doherty MP MLA
Mr William Irwin MLA
Mr George Savage MLA
Mr Jim Shannon MLA

In attendance: Mr Paul Carlisle (Clerk to the Committee)
Mrs Shauna Mageean (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Mark O’Hare (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Michael McCoy (Clerical Officer)
Mr Christopher Shanks (Work Experience Student)

Apologies: none

12.36pm The meeting commenced in Public Session

1. Apologies

As above

2. Minutes

Agreed: The Committee agreed the Minutes of the meeting of 1 February 2010

Agreed: The Committee agreed the Minutes of the meeting of 8 February 2010

3. Presentation: DARD - Proposed Forestry Bill

12.38pm The following departmental officials joined the meeting:

David Small – Chief Executive
Stuart Morwood – Director of Woodland Development and Strategies
Michael McCann – Policy and Legislation Branch
John Joe O’Boyle - Director of Forestry

The officials presented to Committee in respect of the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions

12.39pm Mr Iriwn entered the meeting

12.40pm Mr Shannon left the meeting

12.41pm Mr Shannon rejoined the meeting

1.12pm Mr Shannon left the meeting

1.37pm The meeting was adjourned

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr.
Chairperson, Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

Date

Monday 22 February 2010
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

In attendance: Mr Paul Carlisle (Clerk to the Committee)
Mrs Shauna Mageean (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Mark O’Hare (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Michael McCoy (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mr Francie Molloy MLA

12.42pm The meeting commenced in Closed Session

Members discussed legal advice regarding Clause 5 of the Forestry Bill

12.44pm Mr Shannon entered the meeting

12.55pm Mr Burns entered the meeting

12.57pm Mr Burns left the meeting

1.04pm Mr Savage left the meeting

1.09pm The meeting opened in Public Session

Mr Elliott declared an interest

1. Apologies

As above

2. Minutes

Agreed: The Committee agreed the Minutes of the meeting of 15 February 2010

3. Presentation: DARD – Clause by Clause Scrutiny of the Draft Forestry Bill

1.10pm The following departmental officials joined the meeting:

David Small – Chief Executive
Stuart Morwood – Director of Woodland Development and Strategies
Michael McCann – Policy and Legislation Branch
John Joe O’Boyle - Director of Forestry

The officials presented to Committee in respect of the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions

1.10pm Mr Savage rejoined the meeting

1.19pm Mr Irwin left the meeting

1.23pm Mr Irwin rejoined the meeting

Clause 1 – General Duty of the Department

Question Put and Agreed:

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development recommends to the Assembly that clause 1 be amended as agreed between the Committee and the Department and that the Committee agrees to the text of the amendment".

Clause 2 – Principal Powers of the Department

Clause 3 - Provision of facilities on forestry land

Question Put and Agreed:

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clauses 2 and 3 as drafted"

Clause 4 - Use or development of forestry land

Question Put and Agreed

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development recommends to the Assembly that clause 4 be amended as agreed between the Committee and the Department and that the Committee agrees to the text of the amendment".

Clause 5 - Compulsory acquisition of land

Agreed: The Committee agreed to defer a decision on Clause 5 until the next meeting to allow time for further consideration.

Clause 6 - Inquiries, information, etc.

Question Put and Agreed:

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with Clause 6 subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department".

Clause 7 - Incidental powers

Question Put and Agreed:

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with Clause 7 subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department".

Clause 8 - Control of animals in forests

Question Put and Agreed:

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with Clause 8 subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department."

Clause 9 - Control of animals on land adjacent to forest

Question Put and Agreed:

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with Clause 9 subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department."

Clause 10 - Removal or destruction of vegetation on adjoining land

Question Put and Agreed:

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with Clause 10 subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department."

Clause 11 - Protection for persons acting under section 8, 9 or 10

Question Put and Agreed:

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with Clause 11 subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department."

Clause 12 - Burning of vegetation

Clause 13 - Protection of forest trees, etc. from pests

Clause 14 - Requirement of licence for felling

Clause 15 - Application for felling licence

Clause 16 - Compensation on refusal of felling licence

Question Put and Agreed:

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clauses 12 to 16 as drafted."

Clause 17 - Operation and conditions of felling licence

Question Put and Agreed:

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with Clause 17 subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department."

Clause 18 - Deferred decision on an application for felling licence

Clause 19 - Appeal against decision of Department on application for felling licence

Question Put and Agreed:

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clauses 18 and 19 as drafted."

1.49pm Mr Shannon left the meeting

1.50pm Mr Shannon rejoined the meeting

Clause 20 - Fees in connection with felling licences

Question Put and Agreed:

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clause 20 as drafted."

Clause 21 - Power of Department to require restocking after unauthorised felling

Clause 22 - Appeal against restocking notice

Clause 23 - Notice to require compliance with felling licence conditions or restocking notice

Clause 24 - Appeal against enforcement notice

Clause 25 - Appeals under this Part

Clause 26 - Identification of trees

Clause 27 - Regulations as to applications, claims and notices

Clause 28 - Application of this Part to Crown land

Clause 29 – Interpretation of this part

Clause 30 - Public right of access to, and byelaws for, forestry land

Clause 31 - Powers of entry

Clause 32 - Obstruction of officers, etc

Clause 33 - Prosecutions under this Act

Question Put and Agreed:

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clauses 21 to 33 as drafted."

Clause 34 – Regulations

Question Put and Agreed:

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with Clause 34 subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department."

Clause 35 – Interpretation

Clause 36 - Application to the Crown

Clause 37 - Amendments and repeals [j24]

Question Put and Agreed:

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clauses 35 to 37 as drafted."

Clause 38 - Commencement

Question Put and Agreed:

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with Clause 38 subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department."

Clause 39 – Short Title

Question Put and Agreed:

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with clause 39 as drafted."

Schedule 1

Schedule 2

Question Put and Agreed:

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with the Schedules 1 - 2 as drafted."

Long Title

Question Put and Agreed:

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with the long title as drafted."

Agreed: The Committee agreed to defer a decision with regard to an additional clause proposed by Forest Service in relation to control (with permission of occupier) of animals on land adjacent to forest until the next meeting

1.56pm The meeting was adjourned

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr.
Chairperson, Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

Date

Tuesday 23 February 2010
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Ian Paisley Jnr. (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Burns MLA
Mr Willie Clarke MLA
Mr Pat Doherty MP MLA
Mr William Irwin MLA
Dr William McCrea MP MLA
Mr Patsy McGlone MLA
Mr Francie Molloy MLA
Mr George Savage MLA
Mr Jim Shannon MLA

In attendance: Mr Paul Carlisle (Clerk to the Committee)
Mrs Shauna Mageean (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Mark O’Hare (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Michael McCoy (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: None

12.38pm The meeting commenced in closed session

Members discussed legal advice regarding ‘policy in confidence’ papers.

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to the Department to relay the substance of the legal advice and to advise that they still wish to have sight of the papers relating to the various selection criteria options for Tranche 2 of the Farm Modernisation Scheme which were considered by the Minister and then discounted.

12.42pm The meeting commenced in public session.

1. Apologes

As above

2. Minutes

Agreed: The Committee agreed the Minutes of the meeting of 16 February 2010

Mr Elliott declared an interest

12.50pm Mr Molloy entered the meeting.

12.56pm Mr Savage entered the meeting

Mr Irwin declared an interest

Mr Savage declared an interest

3. Matters arising

(a) Correspondence issued

The Committee noted the correspondence issued since the meeting of 16 February 2010.

(b) Correspondence received

The Committee noted the correspondence received since the meeting of 16 February 2010.

4. Forestry Bill – Clause by Clause Scrutiny

1.00pm The following departmental officials joined the meeting:

David Small – Chief Executive
Michael McCann – Policy and Legislation Branch
John Joe O’Boyle - Director of Forestry

The officials presented to Committee in respect of the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

1.00pm Mr Doherty left the meeting

Mr Shannon declared an interest

1.11pm Mr McGlone entered the meeting

Clause 5 – Compulsory Acquisition of land

Question Put and Agreed

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is content with Clause 5 subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department".

Clause 9 - Control (with permission of occupier) of animals on land adjacent to forest

Question Put and Agreed

“That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is agreed to the insertion of a new clause (Control (with permission of occupier) of animals on land adjacent to forest) after clause 8 of the bill subject to the amendment recommended by the Committee and agreed by the Department".

1.15pm The officials left the meeting

1.16pm Mr Irwin left the meeting

5. Presentation: Loughs Agency -

SL1: The Foyle and Carlingford Area (Angling) (Amendment No 2) Regulations 2010
SL1: The Foyle and Carlingford Area (Conservation of smelt, shad and lamprey) Regulations 2010
SL1: The Foyle Area (Control of Fishing) (Amendment) Regulations 2010

1.17pm The following departmental officials joined the meeting

Stanley Thorpe – Legislation Manager, Loughs Agency
John McCartney – Director of Conservation and Protection, Loughs Agency

1.17pm Mr Elliott left the meeting

1.20pm Mr Irwin rejoined the meeting

1.27pm The following departmental official joined the meeting

Paul Moore – Grade 7 – Principal Officer

The officials presented to Committee in respect of the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

1.29pm Mr McGlone left the meeting

1.31pm Mr McGlone rejoined the meeting

1.32pm Mr Irwin left the meeting

Agreed: The Committee agreed that all of the above mentioned legislation should proceed to the next stage.

1.38pm The officials left the meeting

6. Presentation: Mr Kenneth Patterson – views on the Common Fisheries Policy

1.39pm The following representatives joined the meeting

Mr Kenneth Patterson Fisherman
Mr Adrian Coffee Fisherman
Mr Dennis Jones Fisherman
Mr Jim Hill Fisherman

The representatives presented to Committee in respect of the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

1.47pm Mr Burns entered the meeting

1.52pm Mr Doherty rejoined the meeting

2.05pm Mr Shannon left the meeting

2.11pm Dr McCrea left the meeting

2.17pm Mr Shannon rejoined the meeting

2.26pm Mr Shannon left the meeting

Agreed: The Committee agreed that the Committee Support Office should endeavour to organise an event for stakeholders in the fishing industry

2.26pm The representatives left the meeting

2.27pm Mr Shannon rejoined the meeting

7. Pre-consultation: DARD – Foyle Area (Licensing of Oyster Fishing) (Amendment) Regulations 2010

Agreed: The Committee agreed that officials should present to Committee when a detailed analysis of responses has been undertaken

8. SL1: The Plant Health (Wood and Bark) Order 2010

Agreed: The Committee agreed the above mentioned legislation should proceed to the next stage.

9. SR: The Lough Neagh (Levels) Scheme (Confirmation) Order (Northern Ireland) 2010

Agreed: That the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development has considered the Lough Neagh (Levels) Scheme (Confirmation) Order (Northern Ireland) 2010 and has no objection to the rule.

2.32pm Mr McGlone left the meeting

10. Presentation: DARD – Re-opening of the Countryside Management and Organic Farming Schemes

2.32pm The following departmental officials joined the meeting

Malcolm Beatty – Grade 5 – Assistant Secretary
Sam Kennedy – Grade 6 – Senior Principal Officer
Richard Crowe – Grade 7 – Agriculture Inspector Grade 1

The officials presented to Committee in respect of the above. Following the presentation, Members put questions.

Mr Savage declared an interest

2.48pm Mr McGlone rejoined the meeting

2.50pm Mr Doherty left the meeting

2.50pm Mr Burns left the meeting

2.55pm The officials left the meeting

11. AOB

Agreed: The Committee agreed to write to the Department regarding selection criteria for Tranche 2 of the Farm Modernisation Programme with a view to including succession planning in the modernisation scoring mechanism.

12. Date of the next meeting

The next Committee meeting will be a meeting to review the draft Committee Report on the Forestry Bill at 12.30pm on Monday 1 March 2010 in Room 30, Parliament Buildings.

2.56pm The meeting was adjourned

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr.
Chairperson, Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

Date

Monday 1 March 2010
Room 30, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mr Ian Paisley Jnr. MLA (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Willie Clarke MLA
Mr Pat Doherty MP MLA
Mr Jim Shannon MLA

In attendance: Mr Paul Carlisle (Clerk to the Committee)
Mrs Shauna Mageean (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Mr Mark O’Hare (Clerical Supervisor)
Mr Michael McCoy (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: none

12.35pm The meeting commenced in Public Session

1. Apologies

As above

2. Minutes

Agreed: The Committee agreed the Minutes of the meeting of 22 February 2010

3. Forestry Bill: Draft Committee report

The Committee considered the draft Committee Report on the Forestry Bill.

Agreed: Members agreed the Membership and Powers section of the Report.

Agreed: Members agreed the Executive Summary section of the Report, subject to amendments to paragraphs 11 and 16.

Agreed: Members agreed the Recommendations section of the Report.

Agreed: Members agreed the Introduction section of the Report.

Agreed: Members agreed the Summary of the draft Forestry Bill as presented to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Committee stage section of the Report

Agreed: Members agreed the Summary of Consideration and Agreed Amendments section of the report, subject to amendments to paragraphs 87, 94 and 100.

Agreed: Members agreed the Clause by Clause Scrutiny section of the Report.

Agreed: Members agreed Appendix 1 of the report, ‘Minutes of Proceedings’.

Agreed: Members agreed Appendix 2 of the report, ‘Minutes of Evidence’.

Agreed: Members agreed Appendix 3 of the report, ‘Written Submissions’.

Agreed: Members agreed Appendix 4 of the report, ‘Memoranda and Papers from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’.

Agreed: Members agreed Appendix 5 of the report, “Memoranda and Papers from Others".

Agreed: Members agreed Appendix 6 of the report, ‘List of Witnesses’.

Agreed: Members agreed that the Committee’s Report on the Forestry Bill be printed.

Agreed: Members agreed that the minutes of proceedings of this meeting be included at Appendix 1, upon approval at tomorrow’s meeting

Agreed: Members agreed that the minutes of evidence of this meeting be included in Appendix 2 following circulation by email by the Committee office for immediate approval or amendment.

Agreed: Members also agreed that the Committee’s Report should be laid in manuscript in the Assembly Business Office and that a copy of the report be forwarded to the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development in advance of its publication.

1.13pm The meeting was adjourned

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr.
Chairperson, Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

Date

Appendix 2 Minutes of Evidence

22 September 2009

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

3 November 2009

Woodland Trust and RSPB NI

24 November 2009

Ulster Wildlife Trust

1 December 2009

Farm Woodlands Ltd.

1 December 2009

Council for Nature, Conservation and the Countryside

8 December 2009

Sport NI
Premier Woodlands Ltd.
British Association for Shooting and Conservation

21 January 2010

Northern Ireland Environment Link
Confederation of Forest Industries
Ulster Farmers’ Union
Countryside Access and Activities Network

26 January 2010

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

1 February 2010

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

8 February 2010

British Association for Shooting and Conservation
Confederation of Forest Industries
Countryside Access and Activities Network
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
Northern Ireland Environment Link
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
Woodland Trust

15 February 2010

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

22 February 2010

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

23 February 2010

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

1 March 2010

Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

22 September 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr William Irwin
Dr William McCrea
Mr Patsy McGlone
Mr George Savage
Mr Jim Shannon

Witnesses:

Mr Stuart Morwood
Mr David Small

Forest Service

1. The Chairperson (Mr Paisley Jnr): The Committee is joined by David Small, chief executive of the Forest Service, and Stuart Morwood, director of woodland development strategies. You are both very welcome, and we appreciate your coming. We look forward to your presentation on the Forestry Bill. The floor is yours.

2. Mr David Small (Forest Service): Thank you. This is the first opportunity that we have had to address the Committee since the Bill was referred to its Committee Stage. I plan to outline the background to the Bill, its main purposes and the main clauses. I expect that to take around 10 minutes.

3. Current forestry legislation dates back to 1953 in the form of the Forestry Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 and reflects the priorities of that time, when the main focus was on commercial timber production. That legislation is dated, and it has been evident for some time that new legislation was needed.

4. The forestry strategy that we published in 2006 highlighted two key policy priorities. The first was the need for sustainable management of existing forests to deliver the full range of forestry benefits, and the second was a steady expansion of tree cover. The strategy seeks to deliver a more competitive forestry industry through a balanced approach between producing commercial timber, protecting the forest environment and providing increased opportunities for forest-based leisure and recreation.

5. We need legislation that will provide a statutory framework to deal with those varied issues, and the new Bill will address the Department’s contemporary and evolving commercial, environmental and social forestry objectives. It will allow us to obtain better value from the forest estate through new revenue-generating opportunities, and it will enable us to secure better use of recreational facilities and buildings and facilitate wider objectives, such as tourism. It will help protect all forest trees, both private and public, from damage; it will reintroduce a restriction on the felling of trees in private woodland; and it will provide a public right of access to state forests.

6. The Bill contains 39 clauses and two schedules. It provides a statutory framework within which the Department can deliver its forest expansion and sustainable forestry objectives. Clause 1 creates the foundation of the Bill. It describes the Department’s duty to promote forestry. A similar clause set the framework for the 1953 Act, but the wording in the new proposed clause is wider to reflect an expanded duty to promote the wider economic, environmental and social context of modern forestry.

7. Our aim is to promote and facilitate the full range of benefits that forests can offer. That includes the economic benefits delivered by the timber industry, as well as the renewable energy opportunities that can be delivered. It also includes the wider social benefits. For example, we are currently working with a number of councils to develop recreational tourism products. We recently worked closely with the Northern Ireland Environment Agency to facilitate the relaunch of the Ulster Way. We are currently engaging with the Tourist Board to identify the tourism opportunities in our forests and we are engaging with commercial partners to promote new leisure facilities. The draft Bill will enable us to develop those opportunities.

8. The Bill will also allow us to protect our existing woodland, both publicly and privately owned, especially where it has high biodiversity value — for example, ancient and long-established woodland. In promoting those wider social and environmental benefits, the Bill supports what is meant by the concept of sustainable forestry. That expanded duty is carried throughout the Bill, for example, in clauses 4 and 7.

9. Clauses 2 and 3 provide the Department with the main powers to support the afforestation of land and forest activity, including the acquisition and disposal of land, as well as the ability to provide facilities on forestry land to improve its amenity. That provision will enable the Department to deliver social and recreational forestry, for example, through arrangements with a range of partners. In July, we published a strategy to develop the recreational and social use of our forests. The provisions in the Bill will provide the Department with the powers to support the implementation of that strategy.

10. Clause 4 includes provisions to allow the Department to use or develop its forestry land for purposes other than forestry. The aim is to allow the Department to develop or facilitate what might be regarded as non-forestry opportunities — for example, tourism opportunities such as the provision of forest chalets or cabins in forests, which currently, under our legislative framework, we probably cannot do. It will also allow us to do things like develop renewable energy possibilities such as wind farms.

11. The provisions will enable us to better realise the full potential of our forests and, at the same time, obtain better value from the forest estate. However, in exercising those powers, under clause 4, the Department will be required to have due regard to the general duty — outlined in clause 1 — to promote forestry. Therefore, we must ensure that there is an appropriate balance when we use those provisions.

12. Clause 5 creates a new power to enable the compulsory acquisition of land for any of the functions under the Bill. We seek that power primarily to deal with situations in which forests and the associated timber assets are landlocked, and access, even after reasonable negotiations with landowners, simply cannot be secured. In those situations, the public value of mature timber, which may be the result of many years of public investment, could be lost. Our primary purpose is to try and enable access to landlocked public assets. There may be other circumstances in which land may be required — for example, to facilitate access to a recreational or tourism type of project, or for biodiversity purposes. Therefore, the power is widely drafted. At this stage, we cannot see the full range of contingencies that may require such a power. However, our intention is that the power will be used very sparingly and only with ministerial supervision.

13. The vesting process is described in schedule 1 to the Bill and is based on the procedures that are used under the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, which is considered to be the cornerstone of modern vesting law, with all the established rights, including recourse to an inquiry by the Planning Appeals Commission, compensation, etc.

14. Clause 6 provides the Department with powers to carry out inquiries and to collect and disseminate the results, including the preparation and publication of statistics for the purposes of any of the functions under the Act. That is largely a carry-over from the 1953 Act.

15. Clause 7 is a new power that allows the Department to:

“do anything which appears to it to be conducive or incidental to the discharge of its general duty under section 1(1)."

This clause also allows engagement in partnerships or participation in a body corporate in support of the Department’s general functions, which could, for example, include recreational or renewable-energy initiatives. The power is not intended to be additional to the general duty, but to supplement it.

16. Clauses 8 and 9 are intended to protect forest trees from damage by wild animals. Clause 8 allows an owner and occupier, in the event of damage by wild animals to trees growing on his land, to cull such animals at any time, either in his woodland or in any adjoining land that he owns. That clause applies to owners of any woodland, private or public.

17. Clause 9 provides the Department with a power to deal with damage or likely damage to woodland, public or private, by wild animals living in adjacent land in other ownership. The context for that is our long-term aim to double the area of forest cover. The powers are designed to enable the Department to limit possible damage and will only be exercised where landowners are unable or unwilling to address the problem.

18. Clause 10 is a carry-over from the 1953 Act and is a standard provision in forestry legislation, aimed at protecting woodlands private and public from fire damage. Clause 11 offers protection to woodland owners or the Department’s authorised officials taking action under clauses 8, 9 or 10 of the Bill against prosecution under the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 or the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928.

19. Clause 12 includes provisions to restrict the burning of vegetation close to forests and, again, is a carry-over from the 1953 Act. Clause 13 amends the Plant Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 to provide powers to make subordinate legislation to control the danger of tree disease posed by wood packaging.

20. Clauses 14 to 29 deal with the felling of trees. The key provision in this section of the Bill is the requirement for a felling licence to fell trees on land of 0·2 hectares or more. That will help to underpin our strategic objective of sustainable forest management. The aim is to ensure that private landowners manage their land with due regard to sustainability, including restocking, where appropriate, of sites that have been felled. We hope to use that mechanism to protect woodland of special biodiversity value — for example, ancient woodland. In order to obtain a felling licence the landowner will have to prepare a felling management plan for consideration by the Department. Our aim will be to keep that management plan as simple and straightforward as possible.

21. Felling licences are already a requirement in England, Scotland, Wales and the South of Ireland. Their introduction here is consistent with the principles of good forest management. In order to safeguard the interests of private landowners, there is provision for compensation. In the event that an application for a felling licence is refused, there is also a right of appeal against the decision. A further important provision is the power to require restocking after unauthorised felling. That provision also has an appeal mechanism. Procedures relating to an application for a felling licence and the requirement for a felling management plan will be described in subordinate legislation which will be subject to separate consultation.

22. Clause 30 of the Bill introduces a statutory right of access for pedestrians to the Department’s forests for the purposes of recreation, subject to by-laws. The remaining clauses — 31 to 39 — include powers of entry, regulation-making powers, provisions for amendments and repeals, and provisions relating to commencement of the provisions of the Bill.

23. That summarises the key provisions of the Bill. I apologise if it took a bit longer to deliver than I had hoped. I wanted, as far as possible, to explain the policy aims behind the legislation.

24. The Chairperson: Thank you very much. That is a very helpful precis of the Bill. As you know, the Second Stage of the Bill was taken in the House last week, and it did not get universal approval. A number of concerns were expressed by Members of the Assembly and members of this Committee. I am sure you noted them.

25. You said that you are currently identifying ways to promote forests with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Are you not putting the cart before the horse in that regard? Should those ways not have been identified before the legislation was drafted? One criticism that has emerged is that the Bill is not ambitious enough and does not recognise the full potential of our woodlands and forests to make the hit with tourists.

26. Mr Small: We have had discussions with the Tourist Board about where there may be tourism opportunities in the forests. We accept, and the Minister is clear, that we are not getting as much out of the forests as we should and that there is an awful lot more potential to be realised, in recreational leisure, tourism, health, education and so on.

27. Our feeling is that forests can and should deliver a wider range of Government objectives. We have been having discussions with the Tourist Board about the opportunities for tourism potential in the forests, and about which key sites can deliver more tourism. The Bill has been drafted to give us broader powers. We believe that the powers in the Bill, particularly in clause 4 and clause 7, give us sufficient power to enable us to deliver tourism products, either directly, in partnership with other groups such as district councils — we are working with a number of district councils at the moment on tourism products — or perhaps as part of a joint venture. Clause 7 would allow us to enter into a partnership or body corporate to jointly deliver a tourism, or renewable energy, project, where we can secure the public return at the same time as delivering a new product. Our view, and our legal advice, is that the Bill gives us sufficient powers to do all of that.

28. The Chairperson: Who is leading those discussions with the Tourist Board?

29. Mr Small: The first discussions were taken forward by me and my deputy, John Joe O’Boyle, along with Alan Clarke, the chief executive of the Tourist Board, and his colleague Laura Harvey. Ms Harvey is developing a paper that will set out where the Tourist Board believes there is scope to do more. That will take us forward in identifying the kind of projects that might be possible at key sites and the kind of partnership arrangements that we might want to see in place to help us take those projects forward.

30. The Chairperson: Are you convinced that the Tourist Board is enthusiastic about that?

31. Mr Small: I am; the Tourist Board is very enthusiastic, and we are very keen to work with it.

32. The Chairperson: Has there been any exchange of paperwork yet between the Forest Service and the Tourist Board?

33. Mr Small: Not really, other than letters arranging meetings and establishing the desire to work together. The next stage is that Ms Harvey will produce a memorandum of understanding or heads of agreement that will set out how we will work together.

34. The Chairperson: If it is to meet the potential, my view, and that of other Committee members as expressed in the House, is that that is key to changing gear on our approach to getting the best bang for our buck from forests.

35. Mr Small: We accept that. Another separate, but related, piece of work that we are taking forward is the development of a stronger commercialisation approach in the Department. We are working jointly with the Strategic Investment Board (SIB) to identify the commercial opportunities to do more with the forests. In that respect we will be looking at the possibility of commercialising our current caravan and camping provision, which is generally very well regarded by all those who use the facilities. However, we feel that we are constantly struggling to maintain that standard of delivery, and the private sector would have an interest in delivering caravanning and camping on a commercial footing. We are working with the SIB to look at opportunities like that. We have just secured, with SIB assistance, a partnership with a company called Go Ape to deliver high trees adventures in our forests.

36. The Chairperson: Monkey business.

37. Mr Small: Yes. That company operates widely in GB. With the SIB, we will hopefully be looking at opportunities for tourism-type accommodation, such as forest chalets and forest cabins. Those are the kind of things that we are trying to take forward on a commercial footing with the assistance of the SIB and with commercial partners. On the other hand, we are also trying to develop relationships with district councils that wish to deliver tourism products and recreational leisure products, socially supported through public subsidy.

38. The Chairperson: You will have to guard against advancing some private interests. It has to be an open competition.

39. Mr Small: Absolutely.

40. The Chairperson: I know that a number of Members have expressed an interest. I would like to come back to some of the issues later, but, to get the discussion started, perhaps Members will identify the clause on which they wish to speak.

41. Mr Elliott: As you will appreciate, I will not go through the entire Bill today, because there is quite a bit of it. I will leave it until the Committee Stage, but I will mention a few broad issues. First, following the plenary session, have Mr Small and his team identified anything that they can immediately think of that may be acceptable for the Department to bring forward as an amendment before we develop any of the other issues? Is there anything they see immediately that can be changed or amended so that we do not have to concentrate on it so significantly?

42. Mr Small: At this stage, I do not think that we have, Tom. Following last week’s debate, we want to sit down with the Minister and talk about any areas that she feels may be suitable for amendment. We have not done that yet. The Minister said in the Assembly that she wishes to withdraw the Irish hare from the definition of “wild animal", in the context of managing and controlling the damage that can be caused by wild animals. That is something that the Minister will be bringing forward. We have not yet had the opportunity to sit down and discuss with her the other issues that were raised in the debate. However, that is a process that we must take forward.

43. Mr Elliott: Do you accept that clauses 4, 5 and 7 significantly change major areas of the powers of the Forest Service, giving it an unfair advantage over private commercial forest operators?

44. Mr Small: I think that you are absolutely right. Those clauses significantly change the level of power that we have. However, the purpose of giving us some of those powers, in particular those provided by clauses 4 and 7, is to enable the Forest Service to take forward the type of projects that we just discussed, such as tourism-related projects.

45. Mr Elliott: But the powers are not restricted to that, David. If they were, perhaps I could accept it. The difficulty is that they are not. The Bill gives you wide-ranging powers over compulsory acquisition that the private industry does not have. If those powers only provided for access, we could accept that, or, at least, see some way to develop it. However, the wide-ranging powers go far beyond what any private commercial operator can compete with.

46. Mr Small: I will talk about the commercial forestry element in a moment. However, when it comes to developing tourism projects, we believe that the powers set out in clause 4 and clause 7 give us sufficient scope to do that and do it well. If we are to try to draw back from that level of freedom to negotiate with a private organisation or, indeed, with a council, that will limit the wider benefits that forests can deliver. The compulsory purchase power was debated in the Assembly, and a range of issues were raised about the breadth of that power. The Minister noted the specific interests of the Committee and the other comments made during the debate. We will sit down with the Minister and discuss whether there are ways to amend that particular clause.

47. The clause was drafted in a broad way on the basis that, while we know that there will be issues around access to landlocked timber that we will want to try to address, we believe that similar circumstances might arise in facilitating a tourism product. Some adjustment might be needed, for example, to our own access roads into a site, such as broadening a corner. That is the type of adjustment that we might make and the type of problem that we might want to resolve. However, we do not know all the contingencies in which we would want to use that sort of power. Essentially, that is why it was drafted in that broad fashion. However, the Minister will have noted the comments of the Committee and the comments made during the debate, and we will discuss those issues with her.

48. The Chairperson: You have twice said that those powers were drawn up to be used “sparingly". Given that, and your explanation of the understated ways in which the power will be used, is there not an advantage, as has been suggested, to specifying how that power will be used?

49. Mr Small: That is a suggestion that was made at a previous Committee meeting, and it is something that we will look at. We accept that those powers, as currently drafted, are very broad, and would enable us to compulsorily acquire land for any purpose. We acknowledge the point that is being made by the Committee, and we will discus that with the Minister. There may be ways of restricting that. However, our concern is that we restrict it too far and face the situation, again, where those powers do not do what we want them to. However, that is an issue that we will look at.

50. Mr Stuart Morwood (Forest Service): The Forest Service manages 75,000 hectares of open land and forest, mostly for forestry purposes. However, compared with other land managers — and comparison was made with the private sector — we want to achieve value from the asset. I recently visited a woodland estate which had a significant wind farm attached, enabling the owner to ensure value from his estate. Clauses 4 and 7 allow us to achieve from the forest the value that we would expect any manager of land to achieve. That is important for public value.

51. Mr Elliott: You miss the point. It gives you an unfair advantage over private industry and private foresters. You expect to increase your forest cover through private developers, because you are not going to do it yourself. You admit that the Forest Service cannot do that on its own, so you will expect the private industry to increase forest cover. However, they will be restricted, and you will have an open-ended approach. For example, if forest timber reached an exceedingly good price and Forest Service had 10,000 acres coming to maturity and needed access to it, you could easily get that through these compulsory powers. However, the private landowner does not have that same power. Forest Service, unlike private operators, does not need a felling licence. Therefore, it has a huge advantage over private industry, and that is not recognised in the Bill.

52. Mr Small: I note the comments. Similar comments have been made by stakeholders during the consultation and in the run-up to introducing the Bill. Forest Service has noted the issue and will be discussing it further.

53. The Chairperson: How much will felling licences cost? Is Forest Service proposing to pay compensation for refusing to grant a felling licence?

54. Mr Small: Forest Service is looking at the issue of an application fee for felling licences. The Bill allows us to prescribe a fee. However, we are aware that no fee is payable for an application in England, Scotland, Wales and the South of Ireland. We are working on a business case to establish the merit or otherwise of having a fee. We recognise that it will be very difficult to apply a fee here when the same process operates elsewhere without a fee. We will take account of the number of applications that we expect to receive, the cost of administering the system, and the wider Department of Finance and Personnel policy on cost recovery.

55. The Chairperson: And compensation?

56. Mr Small: There are compensation provisions in the Bill in circumstances where we refuse a felling licence and that results in a loss for the woodland owner in terms of the value of the timber.

57. Mr Morwood: Effectively, it is compensation for deterioration of timber value.

58. The Chairperson: Over the period when the application was made and was refused?

59. Mr Morwood: Over that period.

60. Dr W McCrea: David and Stuart, you acknowledged several times that you had noted the comments that the Committee previously made. Yet, although you noted those comments, you went on with the Bill without actually addressing them. Once again, you have said to the Deputy Chairperson that you have noted the Committee’s comments. However, that does not give us any confidence whatsoever. We are not asking the Department to note our comments. With the greatest of respect, if it was simply a matter of noting comments, we could have written to you, and a meeting would not have been necessary. We want more than the noting of comments.

61. The Committee’s role is to scrutinise the Bill. I will not go into the detail now because we will be going through every section of the Bill clause by clause. We also need to hear the representations that are made by others. At the Committee Stage, we bring people in to make their representations rather than us doing that for them. We have to hear from those who are involved.

62. There are a number of things that you have set out. There is this bland statement:

“A Strategy for Sustainability and Growth".

Where in any of this is there a strategy for sustainability and growth?

63. Mr Small: It is not in the Bill, obviously; the Bill is the legislative tool to enable us to deliver the strategy, which is a published —

64. Dr W McCrea: We need to know exactly where you are taking us. Therefore, we really do need to have a strategy for that sustainability and growth. We need to know what that means in order to know the Bill that is required to accomplish it. If that is the background of the policy objective, it should be set out first. Then, in the light of where you want us to go, you bring in the legislation to support it.

65. It seems that we have a situation in which we have legislation in the minds of officials without having any clear or definite strategy. We can say that we want to double the area of forest, but you know very well that that has not been achieved. I do not know of anything that will attract farmers to plant trees. There has to be a policy and an incentive that will make them turn away from using the land for another purpose and plant trees. Quite frankly, that is going to take the offer of money. Have we got that money?

66. There is genuine concern among Members when we hear about the incidental powers that give Departments general powers to do anything. Elected representatives are suspicious of Departments looking for general powers, because that could mean anything, as we often find that it does. This Bill gives the Department power in such things as the compulsory acquisition of land.

67. The Deputy Chairperson has also made the point about the inequality of what the Department is demanding of others and what it is going to do itself. An example that has been mentioned is the felling licence that it will be demanded that people have, whereas the Department will simply decide willy-nilly whether that is so. You will also have the power to acquire land for the fulfilment of what you want. There is unfair competition between what the Department is demanding and what it can dodge.

68. Without going into the nitty-gritty of the Bill, which the Committee will go through line by line and clause by clause, particularly where we have concerns, what about the protection of the ancient woodlands?

69. Mr Small: I accept absolutely what you are saying about us noting the comments. When I say that I note the comments, I mean that I note them and I give the Committee a commitment that we will take them away, seriously consider them, discuss them with the Minister, and report back to the Committee.

70. Dr W McCrea: My point is that you have had meetings with us in which you have noted those comments, but they are not seen anywhere in the Bill. Therefore, it seems to be noting with no outcome. We want something productive at the end of the noting.

71. Mr Small: I appreciate that. In those earlier discussions with the Committee, a number of comments were made, but reference was also made to the importance of the Committee Stage that would follow and the opportunity that it would offer to have a real debate. In fairness, we were expecting that debate to take place at Committee Stage, having set out our proposals.

72. I accept your point about the need for a strategy. We published the strategy for sustainability and growth in 2006. It sets out our aims for sustainable forest management, how we address issues of forest expansion, and how we put in place measures and the kind of legislation thought necessary to enable us to ensure sustainable management of Northern Ireland’s woods and forests.

73. Dr W McCrea: That strategy was published in 2006, and we are now in 2009. What real changes can we see on the ground three years later? What has changed to give us confidence that we are not simply looking at words, but at a way forward?

74. Mr Small: There are a couple of things. The first is the Bill. The strategy committed us to look at areas where we felt that legislative change was needed. We have done that, and we have developed the legislative proposals. The strategy committed us to taking a more serious approach to the social and recreational use of forests, and in July 2009 we developed and published a recreational and social use strategy, which sets out a two-page implementation plan indicating what we will do to try to deliver more from the forests with regard to leisure, recreation, social use, tourism, health and so on.

75. While we have been developing the Bill, which took a fair bit of work, we have also been developing and publishing our recreation strategy, which was quite a piece of work and involved consultation. We have been working hard to develop new approaches to promoting, marketing and incentivising woodland planting as part of our forest expansion aspirations.

76. I accept that we have not been making as much progress as we would like. We have been involved in a review of those incentives and how we incentivise woodland creation. That has involved a review of the rates of incentive and grant, and it has involved looking at other, more extensive, means by which we can make woodland creation happen at a faster rate than at present. I accept that it is difficult to persuade some farmers who have been farming their land for years, and in some cases generations, to set aside that agriculture interest in place of forestry. Nevertheless, it is something that we need to try to address.

77. You raised, as Mr Elliott did, the issue of felling licences applying to private woodland owners but not to us, and the issue of compulsory purchase and the advantage that that might give us. All I can do at this stage is note those comments and give an undertaking that we will take them away and look seriously at what is being proposed and what has been said, and see whether we can make amendments that would try to balance that at bit better.

78. We believe that there are provisions in the Bill that will enable us to manage and protect ancient woodland in the future. We do not have a provision that clearly indicates that ancient woodland will be protected in all circumstances, but we believe that there are provisions in the Bill that will enable us to protect the higher-biodiversity woodland in Northern Ireland, such as ancient woodland, long-established woodland and native woodland.

79. Mr Morwood: That provision is made specifically through the felling regulation, which enables us to indicate to owners the timing of their felling, the extent of their felling and how woodland should be regenerated. It is worth bearing in mind that ancient woodland is a living thing: trees are young, they get older, and they die. Woodland will often be managed, and owners will often want to fell individual trees in their woodland for a particular end use and to derive benefit from it. The felling regulation seeks to ensure that that is done according to good forestry practice, which is identified in the UK forestry standard that is just out for consultation, along with the associated guidelines and booklets available on the subject. Through the felling regulation, we will be able to assess an owner’s proposal to manage his ancient woodland, and we expect that to be managed in conjunction with good forest practice. We will apply that to ancient woodland and to other types of woodland.

80. The Chairperson: Do you feel that there would be more chance of growth, success and development if the scheme was grant-supported?

81. Mr Small: In terms of creating new woodland?

82. The Chairperson: Yes.

83. Mr Small: A grant scheme is available, and broadleaf trees account for 70% of its uptake. We have issued clear guidance on, and definitions of, “native" woodland to ensure that anyone who is contemplating putting woodland in place understands what is needed to make it “native".

84. Mr Morwood: Incentives for the establishment of woodland are available through the woodland grant scheme. In addition, annual payments are available under a farm woodland premium scheme to compensate for income forgone for a period of up to 15 years. Support is available to landowners through the rural development programme, the woodland grant scheme and the farm woodland premium scheme. As David indicated, we have recently examined those levels of support.

85. The Chairperson: Do you accept that those support levels are not sufficient to attract a lot of people to forest diversification?

86. Mr Morwood: I recognise that, in the previous year, we did not achieve the target that we set out to achieve. In the three years previous to that, we did achieve our targets on the annual rate of increase in new woodland. The decline in uptake has made us focus not only on the rates but on how we promote the schemes and engage with farmers and landowners to ensure that they are aware of the schemes and can see the benefits of woodland ownership.

87. Mr Small: Although we achieved our targets in those years, we recognise that we need to set higher targets if we are to achieve our long-term target of doubling forest cover.

88. The Chairperson: We will measure your commitment to those stated objectives by the changes that come forward as a result of today’s dialogue.

89. Mr W Clarke: The Bill should make reference to using forestry as a tool for alleviating flooding and combating climate change. It is more than 50 years since the last change was made, and it could be a hell of a long time until the next change is made.

90. I agree with you about ancient woodland: management is the key. There is no point in having 200-year-old trees and no growth of young trees. You could get a storm and they would all be gone, so management is vital. How does that dovetail with Department of the Environment (DOE) tree preservation orders? How do you work with other Departments in relation to that? Which Department has the greatest powers?

91. I am glad that there is great emphasis on positive stuff such as recreation, social wellbeing and tourism. However, those things must be delivered, and there is a difficulty in relation to recreation. I do not want to get into that, but at times there seems to be a bit of foot-dragging. It is a case of Forest Service managing change and making it clear that the organisation is no longer into only wood production. It is a new phase, and you must take people with you. How difficult is it for you to manage change?

92. It is obviously going to take a considerable amount of money to deliver the Bill. Will the generation of new income that is needed to deliver the changes remain ring-fenced within Forest Service?

93. Will there be a greater opportunity to employ people in forestry? I envisage that we will need many more staff to deliver the programme. Who will administer repairs to roads and restore damage on roads? I am conscious that the Department for Regional Development is responsible for standards on rural roads and stuff like that. Who will administer repairs, and how will that be rolled out?

94. Mr Small: I appreciate that the wider issues of climate change and flood alleviation are not explicitly mentioned in the Bill. We fully recognise those issues. However, we feel that we have sufficient power to do what is needed — to mitigate and adapt, from a forestry perspective, on climate change and to maximise the Forest Service’s role in flood alleviation. I will, perhaps, say more about that issue in a moment.

95. You talked about the distinction between the felling regulation system that is proposed in the Bill and tree preservation orders. The Bill’s aim is to protect areas of woodland and forestry rather than individual trees or small numbers of trees, which will continue to be protected by the tree preservation order system. I know that that system can have weaknesses, but it is the system that is there to deal with that kind of situation. Our focus is very much on areas of woodland and forestry; that is the type of woodland that we want to protect.

96. Income retention is something that we would like to see happen. In our discussions with the Strategic Investment Board on our joint work trying to identify commercial opportunities, part of that arrangement is an acknowledgement that we should be able to retain some of the income that we secure. I would like to think that that income can be recycled, either by increasing staff numbers or by taking forward further initiatives to get more commercial projects going.

97. The issue of employing greater numbers in forestry introduces the issue of wider resourcing within government. We have been under quite a bit of pressure in the past couple of years, and it has forced us to become more efficient. That has meant reducing staffing numbers. I expect that pressure to continue. However, it would be good if our work with SIB on the commerciality of our activities could enable us to retain some income. We will certainly continue to negotiate to that effect with SIB and, ultimately, the Department of Finance and Personnel.

98. We acknowledge the issues of roads. The Minister and I receive correspondence about that. We are engaging with Roads Service to try to find a better way through which either Roads Service or Forest Service can become more clearly responsible for repairing damage that we are satisfied has been caused by forestry operations. There is nothing in the legislation about that. We have had discussions with Roads Service, and we believe that we can put mechanisms in place without legislation. The Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 contains legislative provision that allows Forest Service to go out and do work. However, we need to develop any approach in more detail with Roads Service. We acknowledge that problem and are committed to addressing it.

99. Mr Irwin: Like other members, I welcome some parts of the Bill and have concerns about others. It is positive that Forest Service is looking at tourism. In my area, Armagh, Clare Glen and Gosford Forest Park have been used in conjunction with the council. That is good. As one member has already said, elected members always fear too much power, because it might be abused. We need clarification on that matter.

100. Clause 4 outlines the powers that the Forest Service wants to have over its own lands. That is fair enough; Forest Service needs power over its own lands. The compulsory acquisition of land is more difficult. I understand that there may be narrow laneways and other things that could be difficult. However, it needs some tidying up and clarification.

101. Mr Small: That point has come through strongly. We take note of it and we commit to considering the issue.

102. Mr Shannon: I apologise for being late this morning. I had a meeting set up in advance of the Committee and it had to go ahead. I am sorry that I was not here to hear the presentation. I suspect that Tom was the first to speak after the presentation. Is that correct?

103. The Chairperson: Yes.

104. Mr Shannon: I caught the gist of what he was saying.

105. The Chairperson: Go ahead and ask a question.

106. Mr Shannon: I am concerned about a number of issues. I am not sure that this is the time or place to raise them. However, I want to mark up what other members have said, and in particular what Willy McCrea has said.

107. If we wanted to have a wee chat, we could e-mail each other using the modern system of technology, but that is not what we are about. The Chairman has reiterated, and I agree with him, that the Forestry Bill should incorporate all the issues that we have. The Department should respond to that. The Minister has said in the Chamber that she will work with the Committee to bring things forward. She wants the Bill just as we do. However, it is not right that we support it uncritically. I want to be sure that all the issues are dealt with.

108. The Chairperson: I hope that we will help to get it right. That is the intention that I proceed on.

109. Mr Shannon: I am convinced that we will. That is my intention, too.

110. Compulsory purchase of land has already been mentioned. I will not go over it again, but I want to make it quite clear that I, too, have those concerns. There are other ways of doing business without resorting to compulsory purchase of land. You could have a compulsory right of access. There are ways of doing things without taking land away. If we are going to have a process of moving forward together, which is what we are here for, let us do it without the compulsory purchase provision.

111. Mr Morwood mentioned that take-up in relation to new woods and the planting of trees has not been as good over this last period. The Minister has said in the Chamber that she would like tree-planting to increase by 6% to 12%. I am sorry, that is off the top of my head. We need to have incentives in place to ensure that that will happen. It is all very well to say let us do it, but it will only happen if there is something to encourage farmers to do it. It is not just about the reworking of land. When you plant trees, you take that land out of agricultural use for a great many years beyond the time when the trees are removed.

112. I am very concerned about — I hope I have the right clause here —

113. The Chairperson: Just call out the clause and ask the question. No need to go through all 30 clauses.

114. Mr Shannon: I have only half a dozen here. The compulsory purchase of land is in clause 5; clause 1 is the incentive to plant trees; clauses 8 and 9 are to do with the powers of the rangers. That sounds exciting. Rangers, like in war films, go onto private land adjacent to forests public and private to shoot deer.

115. The Chairperson: OK, Tonto.

116. Mr Shannon: I am very concerned about opportunities that the rangers might have. In particular, the DOE has a red grouse project under way. That is a biodiversity project that requires that everyone play ball. I am concerned about that project, which £0·5 million of private finance has been put into. The Department of Agriculture and the forestry rangers might be roaming freely over land, doing away with all the good work that is done.

117. I am also concerned at clause 11, which enables staff to shoot deer day or night. There has to be some control over departmental officials and staff. We have to think about where we are in relation to deer welfare. It is about managing the animals, deer in this case, in a sustainable way.

118. Also according to clause 11, your staff are exempt from the provisions of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 and the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928. Why should that be? Nobody is outside the law. I am putting down a marker. I am concerned that the rangers — not Glasgow Rangers, the other rangers — are exempt from the provisions of the 1985 Order and the 1928 Act. That must never be the case.

119. You said that the Department may cull deer that might cause damage, for goodness’ sake. Every person who drives a car “might" cause an accident; every person who walks across the street “might" get knocked down; every deer that happens to be in a forest “might" cause damage. It is unbelievable. I refer back to clause 9. The Department wants the costs of such deer culling on private land to be recoverable from the owners of adjacent land, and that is supposedly for the benefit of other private woodland owners. They will shoot all the deer, take them back to wherever they go to and then send the bill to the landowner, because it was his or her land on which the animal was shot.

120. Mr McGlone: And they were wild.

121. Mr Shannon: And they were wild. It is incredible. The Forest Service accepts no responsibility for road traffic accidents that are caused by wild deer. That is correct. I accept that; that is how it should be. Neither does it accept responsibility for losses incurred by sheep farmers from foxes that inhabit their forests and stray out onto farmland. However, the Department wants to reverse that in its own interests and cull wild animals on private ground. You cannot be poacher and gamekeeper; you are either one or the other. Hopefully, you will not be a poacher. If you are, you will be on a sticky wicket. It is worth noting the inconsistency of this.

122. Earlier, I mentioned the £500,000 grouse project. There are people putting their hands deep into their pockets to ensure that the grouse are encouraged to multiply, and there will be economic benefit to that.

123. The compulsory purchase of land has been touched upon. During the Bill’s Second Stage, I said that at no stage when talking about clause 4 did the Minister refer to recreational deer stalking or recreational shooting. There is an economic benefit there which the Department has not taken on board and which is being denied. It is not mentioned anywhere here. The Minister said in the Chamber that she was prepared to look at it. I am asking the Department to do that and make sure that they have taken it on board.

124. My last point, which everyone will be glad to hear, is to do with —

125. The Chairperson: I am enjoying this, Jim; it is very informative.

126. Mr Shannon: I suggested that there is a need for a deer forum or a users’ forum. The Minister indicated that she would be receptive to that. I introduced my comments by saying that I would be unhappy if we proceeded with a Forestry Bill that does not take those issues on board. However, I think that the Minister and the Committee can work together to deliver that. It takes us to work together, and it takes the Department to be receptive to the viewpoints put forward by members around the table today. I hope that all of the points are taken on board. I am sorry for the lengthiness of my comments, but it is important that I put down the marker at this stage. I will be watching with great interest to see whether the Bill that everyone wants is delivered.

127. The Chairperson: Mr Small, I think that you get the gist. A balance has to be struck between the extent of the powers that the Department wants and what is in the best interests of the Forest Service. There was a lot of detail in those questions. I want you to give a general answer now, but I would like you to come back on each of those issues, because there is a lot there, and we need to get it right.

128. Mr Small: You talked about compulsory right of access, as have other members. We will be properly considering all of the issues that have been raised and reporting back to the Committee. You talk about forest expansion and the need for better incentives, and that is something that we are looking at. We recognise that we are not achieving as much woodland creation as we would like or need to support if we are going to achieve our longer-term targets. We are looking at that whole issue. However, I do not think that that is something for the Bill, which, if it is passed, will give us powers to pay grants, incentives and annual premiums. The power to do that will be enshrined in the Bill.

129. Mr Shannon: It is not that the power is not there, but the incentives must be right to encourage people to take advantage of it. If they are not right, who will do it?

130. Mr Small: As I said, we already pay incentives, but they are not achieving what we want, so that is something that we are looking at.

131. You spoke a lot about clauses 8 and 9, which are about controlling the damage to forests by wild animals. For example, you talked about the exemption for authorised officers of the Department who shoot deer and who would otherwise be in contravention of some of the other wildlife legislation.

132. Mr Shannon: You should be aware that such people might also be in contravention of environmental legislation.

133. Mr Small: We are aware of that. The protection also applies to other woodland owners who cull wild animals under clause 8, so it is not just something that we are putting in place for our own — [Interruption.]

134. The Chairperson: My Clerk has just culled a wild animal.

135. Mr Small: Clause 11 specifies that it is any landowner who exercises the powers under clauses 8 or 9. The other thing is that the power in clause 9 to go on to adjacent land to control deer is only exercisable when everything else has failed. We will endeavour to resolve those situations by negotiating with landowners, and it will only be when that fails and it is apparent that an entire area of young woodland will be destroyed that we would want the power to go in and deal with the problem. But I appreciate the sensitivities of what was suggested —

136. The Chairperson: The legislation could be shaped for specific, rather than general, circumstances, That brings us back to comments that were made earlier.

137. Mr Small: The only other issue is clause 4, which does not refer specifically to recreational shooting. In fact, it does not mention any particular recreation, whether that is high-trees adventuring or mountain biking. We are not trying to specify in the Bill every form of recreation that we will want to facilitate.

138. Mr Elliott: Otherwise, you would have to put in wild dove shooting.

139. Mr Shannon: Before mountain biking became the modern-day craze that it is, hunting deer, whether by bow and arrow, spear or modern firearm, had been going on for centuries, so it seems to be a bit unrealistic to have excluded it. There is potential to be realised.

140. The Chairperson: The point that the Bill is unambitious has been well made, both in the debate and around the table.

141. Mr Shannon: I think so. There was one other thing — the forum.

142. The Chairperson: We really have to move on. Be very quick about the forum, because time is getting on.

143. Mr Small: The forum issue was mentioned during the debate, and, again, we will discuss it with the Minister.

144. Mr McGlone: A number of issues have already been touched on in considerable depth. I am anxious to establish the level of collaboration that there will be on the burning of vegetation between the Forest Service and the DOE, particularly the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. Many people from the farming community and rural areas will know about problems with licensing for lighting fires and about officers landing out with them, so I am concerned that they might have to go through another permission-seeking process, which would further add to an unending stream of bureaucracy and red tape. Therefore, in order to ensure that we have not created more hoops for people to jump through just to burn a lock of briars, I am anxious to establish the level of contact with yourselves, and, for want of a better phrase, your harmony of approach on this matter.

145. When we come to clause 30, I will be interested to get a flavour of the Department’s thinking on the by-laws.

146. Finally, bearing in mind what Mr Shannon referred to earlier, the explanatory and financial memorandum says of clause 31:

“in a case of extensive damage being caused to forest land by wild animals on land adjacent to the forest".

I would have thought that, in the first instance, it should read:

“from land adjacent to the forest".

However, does that tie in with making the landowner on whose land those wild animals currently are responsible for any damage that those animals may have caused on forest lands? They may not even be his animals or his stock. If the animals are on land adjacent to the forest, they cannot damage the forest, if you know what I mean. The language is either clumsy or incompatible.

147. Mr Shannon: You can almost see the stag and the doe on that person’s land —

148. Mr McGlone: You would need to have a pretty long neck.

149. Mr Shannon: They say, “don’t go across that line". What they do not know is that the ranger is on top of the hill watching them, and he blows the both of them away.

150. The Chairperson: Is that what you do?

151. Mr McGlone: Anyway, that is something that we can discuss later. In the light of what Jim said, it is something that we want to watch.

152. Mr Small: I do not think that there is any intention —

153. The Chairperson: I do not think that anyone trusts the Department; I just get that impression. [Laughter.]

154. I do not know if you have picked that up or not. Most of my colleagues have been very subtle in their approach.

155. Mr Small: I have tried to describe the circumstances under which the powers in clause 9 would be used; that is, in circumstances in which we have not been able to reach agreement with the landowner on a resolution to a problem that we know exists, where a significant piece of either private woodland — which has been the subject of private investment — or public woodland is seriously at risk. In a situation in which one stands to lose the entire area of woodland unless the animal, which happens to be a deer, is dealt with, it is only after discussions and negotiations with the landowner that we would go in and use that power to cull the deer. It is not something that we would resort to as a first option.

156. Mr McGlone: I was questioning the wording of the explanatory and financial memorandum.

157. Mr Small: I do not have the memorandum to hand; I have a copy of the Bill. However, I will look at how that is worded.

158. Mr McGlone: Thank you.

159. The Chairperson: Thank you for that comprehensive explanation of those clauses. Following on from what I have heard, it is my intention to consider inviting the Tourist Board and the SIB to give us their views. I know that you have had discussions with them as well. That would be very helpful to us. There are some substantial matters to consider, and which are of genuine concern to people. I would like you to come back on those issues so that when we go through the Bill we get an agreement. Otherwise, the Bill will end up being opposed in the House. We want an efficient piece of legislation that will be as ambitious as it needs to be.

160. I ask members to approve the submission of a draft motion to the Business Office for an extension of the Bill’s Committee Stage to 2 March 2010.

Members indicated assent.

161. Mr Small: I assure members that we will consider seriously the points that have been raised and report back to the Committee. It is our desire to reach an agreement on the Bill that we can all be comfortable with.

162. The Chairperson: That is great. Thank you very much.

3 November 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Pat Doherty
Mr William Irwin
Dr William McCrea
Mr Jim Shannon

Witnesses:

Mr Patrick Cregg Mr Lee Bruce		Woodland Trust
Mr John Martin Mr Mike Wood		Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

163. The Chairperson (Mr Paisley Jnr): I welcome Patrick Cregg, the director of the Woodland Trust; Lee Bruce, the government affairs officer for the Woodland Trust; John Martin, a policy officer for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB); and Mike Wood, the UK forestry adviser to the RSPB.

164. I take this opportunity to thank the RSPB publicly for recently taking me to see some of its project work, a visit that I found extremely informative and useful.

165. Gentlemen, you are here today to make a presentation on the Forestry Bill and to give us your views on it; the floor is yours.

166. Mr Patrick Cregg (Woodland Trust): Thank you very much, Chairperson. I sincerely thank the Committee for affording us the opportunity to appear before it, and the Clerk for facilitating the arrangements for today. We are mindful that the Committee has a busy workload, so rather than appear as individual non-governmental organisations (NGOs), we felt that it would be prudent and more efficient for our two organisations, the Woodland Trust and the RSPB, to join forces, on a shared platform, to make a presentation today.

167. I will begin by outlining the central themes of the submission that the Woodland Trust prepared when the legislation was being considered in 2008, after which I will mention a couple of points of detail in the legislation. My colleague John Martin from the RSPB will do likewise. With your permission, Chairperson, we will each take 15 minutes to do so.

168. The Chairperson: Yes, that is fine.

169. Mr P Cregg: We welcome the fact that new legislation is to be introduced. The current legislation was introduced a month before I was born in 1953, so we are due new legislation.

170. The Chairperson: That is not how we measure the need for legislation. [Laughter.]

171. Mr P Cregg: We welcome the legislation, and we want to put on record our thanks to the Executive for placing it high on the agenda, because we feel that it will create lots of opportunities. However, we have concerns because the new legislation looks like more of the same; the same old legislation regurgitated without looking at the modern requirements and benefits of forestry in the twenty-first century.

172. We are concerned that the legislation simply looks at growing more Sitka spruce to cut down for commercial purposes. I should say at the outset that we recognise that there is an industry in Northern Ireland and an opportunity for commercial forestry to provide much-needed jobs right across the Province. As I said, we hope that now that we are in the twenty-first century, any legislation will look at the wider opportunities in forestry and what it can offer us as a country and a people. I am thinking of the environmental and social benefits, and one concern is that the legislation makes no mention whatsoever of sustainable forest management.

173. In 2008, we were lucky enough to be asked to comment on the legislation when it was being drafted. We made a submission to Forest Service and the drafters of the Bill in which we outlined a number of key issues that we wish to see the legislation address. We asked that there be absolute protection for all ancient and long-establishment woodland. Such woodland is a finite resource that covers about 10,000 hectares across the Province. It is less than 1% of the land area of the Province, and it is probably regarded as being the richest as regards biodiversity and wildlife terrestrial habitat in Northern Ireland.

174. The Chairperson: You emphasise that by saying that it is a mere 10,000 hectares.

175. Mr P Cregg: It is less than 1% of the land area of Northern Ireland; it is 0·08%. In Great Britain, 2% of the land area is covered by ancient and long-established woodland. We are asking for absolute protection for ancient and long-established woodland, and that needs to be reflected in the Bill.

176. Recently, the Woodland Trust spent £1 million on creating an inventory of all the ancient woodland that exists in the Province, and Planning Service has taken on board a recognition that there will be a presumption against development on lands that are ancient woodland. We would like to see that reinforced in the forestry legislation.

177. The Executive and Forest Service have a commitment to forest expansion in Northern Ireland. We are also bottom of the pile in respect of woodland cover. We have 6% woodland cover. It was only the accession to the European Union of Malta, with 1% cover, that moved us one rung off the bottom of the ladder. The legislation should contain some mechanism to reflect that committees such as this must monitor how Forest Service is working to achieve its aspiration to double woodland cover across the Province.

178. Our ancient woodland inventory showed that one third of the 10,000 hectares of ancient woodland has been degraded through planting with non-native species. Since ancient woodland is a finite resource, the legislation should reflect that there will be a commitment to restoring the 3,000 hectares that have been degraded through planting. The legislation should also include a recognition that some other habitats have been degraded over the decades by the inappropriate planting of conifers.

179. In the twenty-first century, we need to think of our forests as a resource, not only for timber but for education, tourism and quiet, passive recreation. That should be reflected in the legislation.

180. Subsequent to the consultation, we were dismayed by the proposed draft legislation. We had a number of concerns, which I will talk about, and my colleague John Martin will talk to you about the RSPB’s concerns.

181. First, if the definition of the general duty in clause 1 is not right, the legislation will be flawed. The definition of general duty in clause 1 is too narrow. It should reflect that forestry should contribute to climate-change mitigation, sustaining wildlife, outdoor learning and the creation of attractive places for people to live and work. Alongside that, the definition should reflect the commercial benefits that can be accrued from growing forestry for timber production.

182. The general duty should be rewritten to ensure that priority habitats, species and designated sites are conserved; that ancient and long-established woods are protected; and, crucially, that native woodland will be expanded in line with the commitment by Forest Service in its strategy to double woodland cover in the Province over the next 50 years. Not only should the Department be responsible for protecting the environment, but it must have a duty to enhance it. It is essential that the definition of general duty embraces the fact that the Department must protect what we have, restore what has been damaged and expand the resource by planting the right tree in the right place.

183. My second point is about felling licences. Since having the privilege of being director of the Woodland Trust in Northern Ireland for the past 13 years, I have campaigned for the reintroduction of a requirement for felling licences in the Province to bring us into line with not only the rest of the UK, but the rest of Europe. Only through a system of controls can we protect what we have. Unfortunately, the clauses in the Bill are lacking.

184. My first impression is that the Bill could give unfair advantage to Government because the felling requirement will apply only to the private sector. In fact, 70% of Northern Ireland’s woodlands will not be protected by the use of a felling licence. What is good for the goose must be good for the gander. If people in the private sector must apply for a licence to fell trees on their land, Forest Service and all owners of public land should have to abide by the same rules and regulations. Otherwise, Government will have an unfair commercial advantage over the private sector that could be to the detriment of forestry in that sector.

185. Like our colleagues in the Planning Service, we ask that there should be a presumption against granting a felling licence for all sites that are on the ancient woodland inventory. Moreover, people should not, as Forest Service is suggesting, be charged for applying for a felling licence. The Forestry Commission in Great Britain and the Forest Service in the Republic of Ireland do not charge. At the moment, the private sector would be charged for the right to apply for a felling licence.

186. We think that an anomaly exists. Forest Service is suggesting that if somebody in the private sector applies for a felling licence and it is refused, the Department will pay them compensation for, essentially, doing what is right. Some members of the Committee will remember the furore 20 years ago when the Planning Service placed tree preservation orders on trees and paid out vast amounts of money to people in the private sector because they had done so. The legislation had to be changed because the public purse could not endure that cost. It is nonsense that Forest Service is suggesting that it will compensate people for doing what is right.

187. There has been a requirement on Forest Service, although it has not been obligatory, to create an inventory of all woodland in the Province. That requirement dates back to the Executive’s signing off of the Northern Ireland biodiversity strategy in 2001. Forest Service has been reluctant to create such an inventory. Given that we do not know what we are losing at the other end, the Committee is left in a position where it cannot monitor the Forest Service’s progress on expanding woodlands in the Province. The legislation must place an obligation on Forest Service to, once and for all, get on with the commitment made by the Executive in 2001 and create an inventory of all woodlands in the Province so that organisations such as ours and, more importantly, groups such as the Committee can monitor Forest Service’s success in progressing woodland expansion across the country.

188. The Chairperson: You said that the Woodland Trust has spent about £1 million on putting an inventory in place. You have that baseline.

189. Mr P Cregg: We have the baseline for ancient woodland and long-established woodland. Forest Service has the baseline for its estate, which is about 70% of all woodland. We are simply saying that pulling that information together would be a desk exercise. Far be it from me to play devil’s advocate, but I suspect that if such information was in place, elected representatives could monitor the success of efforts to reach the target of doubling woodland cover from 6% to 12% to bring us into line with the figure in Great Britain.

190. The Chairperson: If it is not measured, it is not done.

191. Mr P Cregg: I now hand over to John Martin of the RSPB, who will speak on other issues; I hope that I have not used up too much of his time.

192. Mr John Martin (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds): As Patrick said, in 2008, the Woodland Trust and the RSPB individually submitted responses on the proposed provisions for a new Northern Ireland forestry Act to Forest Service. In that submission, we stated that we would welcome a new NI forestry Act to update the statutory role and duties of Forest Service to better reflect modern-day forestry and to make provision for a tree-felling licence and biodiversity conservation. We felt that the existing legislation did not take account of Northern Ireland’s international commitments to sustainable forest management or its biodiversity commitments under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the EC habitats and birds directives.

193. In that submission, we stated that the new forestry Act should place a sustainability duty on Forest Service to further the conservation of biodiversity in NI woods, forests and associated habitats and species. That duty would also ensure that all forestry and woodland management is carried out in accordance with the UK forestry standard for woodland and forestry management, which would be applied to all woodland and the Forest Service estate. We encouraged the introduction of a felling licence in line with the GB practice of issuing felling licences that comply with the requirements of the UK Forestry Standard. We stated that the Act should define forestry as including planning, design, management and operations of all state, public and private woodland.

194. We also stated that there was potential to increase the restoration of priority open-ground habitat that was not in conflict with restocking commitments or a felling licence. At that time, all our requests were made with a view to the promotion and regulation of sustainable multi-benefit forest management to the benefit of birds, wildlife and people. In the light of the new forestry legislation being brought forward, we will highlight a number of areas in which both organisations feel the Bill could be enhanced. Additional asks relate to incidental powers, research and a stakeholder advisory committee; I will deal with each of those in turn.

195. Clause 7 gives the Department power to do anything that appears to it to be conducive or incidental to its general duty under section 1(1). Unfortunately, the general duty does not include sustainable forestry management across all forests in all ownerships. That makes incidental powers even more wide-ranging because they are not defined or constrained in clause 1, which deals with the Department’s general duty. Clause 7 essentially gives the Department power to override other clauses in the legislation. We feel, therefore, that the Department should be asked to clarify why it needs those powers. If no explanation is received, due consideration should be given to the removal of clause 7. If the clause remains, Forest Service must exercise any incidental powers under clause 7 in an environmentally sustainable manner.

196. We are concerned about any ill-defined powers that may result through the use of that clause. Concern has rightly been raised about the wide nature of these powers. Our concern is that Forest Service will be able to dispose of a site that, although no longer profitable, may deliver on social and environmental commitments. Forest Service should have the power to dispose of sites or alter their land use, but only in accordance with rigorous public-benefit tests. Therefore, we feel that clause 2 would benefit from any such Forest Service proposals being made subject to a public-benefit test before decisions are taken. That would enable greater stakeholder and public engagement in forestry management and would add to accountability.

197. Our second ask concerns research. Any research that Forest Service plans to carry out should be freely available to the public if public money will be spent. The research should improve and enhance the sustainable management of forests. The research should be over and beyond what the market can provide for forest research, and it should be consulted on publicly.

198. Finally, both organisations would encourage stakeholder advisory input. It is important that that is built into the Bill, because it does not exist currently. The RSPB and the Woodland Trust would welcome the establishment of an oversight body to advise on sustainable forestry issues such as felling licences, environmental impact assessments, research needs and policy recommendations. The body would be made up of various forestry stakeholders, including the managing authority and those with social, economic and environmental interests, both inside and outside of Government. The establishment of such a body would be consistent with forestry legislation in the greater UK.

199. The RSPB and the Woodland Trust welcome the proposal to bring forward new forestry legislation. However, if the Bill is passed in its current form, we will miss an historic opportunity to influence how important forestry and woodland resources are managed for people, wildlife and the wider environment. Changes will not be cumbersome; rather, they will advance the Bill to meet its full potential.

200. The Chairperson: Thank you. How would a national forestry advisory committee of stakeholders differ from the Forest Service on a practical day-to-day basis?

201. Mr Mike Wood (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds): It would bring in a range of issues and interests that Forest Service does not regularly access. I will give a practical example in a non-contentious area. An issue that will emerge on implementation of the Bill is sensible management of woodlands of all types, including small woodlands on farms. It would be useful for Forest Service to have an advisory group working hard on the Executive’s behalf to come up with recommendations on good, sensible guidance on how to write a management plan, which could be an annotated map and management guidance. Such a group would draw on the experience of stakeholders and would not be just a hammer with which to bash Forest Service over the head: it would be supportive in giving good, sensible advice, which is not solely or completely contained in the Department.

202. I sit on the UK woodland assurance standard steering group, which is a partnership of social, environmental and economic interests, both governmental and non-governmental. It is the voluntary standard against which Forest Service is audited to meet international criteria. The steering group is a partnership that draws on a range of experiences in order to come up with a consensus. An advisory body could be used to carry out those types of tasks. The proposal to reintroduce felling licensing could be contentious and difficult, and the Department might find it helpful to take soundings from the forest industry and other stakeholders in order to come up with practical guidance on how to do that. Otherwise, Forest Service will run into trouble.

203. The Chairperson: You are right about contentiousness: by and large, it is always best to take wider advice. However, where there is contention — such as when sustainability runs up against and is juxtaposed with the commercial needs of foresters — and Ministers, the Department or Forest Service did not take the advice of the advisory committee, that would create a conflict. The balance on that occasion could, hypothetically speaking, fall on the side of commercial forestry. What powers do you envisage an advisory body having, other than being just a consultee?

204. Mr Wood: It would be just a consultee. Regional advisory committees have had similar cases in Great Britain. The RSPB has had cases when a regional advisory committee came to find out what it was doing about removing trees to restore heathland habitats. The committee wanted to find out how a non-governmental organisation was following the legislation on environmental impact assessments, and what practical steps the RSPB was taking to consult local communities. There is an aspect of fact-finding and of providing good practice guidance to the Department on how to resolve difficult issues. Advisory bodies could also be used to help to arbitrate in difficult cases, not in the sense of having powers, but by making recommendations.

205. Mr Martin: The RSPB and the Woodland Trust work extensively with farmers, advising on matters such as agrienvironment and woodland planting schemes. We find it very useful to have continual engagement with the farming community to find out from the grass roots how they want to do things or how they think things could be done better. That has enhanced our work and their work. An advisory body would add to how forestry is delivered in Northern Ireland. There would, no doubt, be a top-down approach, because there is a need for that, but the advisory body would also try to provide bottom-up advice, drawing on experiences elsewhere.

206. Mr P Cregg: It is important to state that there is a wealth of knowledge and information in the NGO community, irrespective of whether the charities are environmental or social. The information that is available is being offered free of charge. We are sometimes regarded with suspicion when we tender an opinion. There should not be such suspicion. We are willing to give of our time to contribute our wealth of information and knowledge to the Government free of charge. People should hold out their hands and accept some of what we are offering. We do not mind if our advice is dismissed, because at least we have had the opportunity to provide it.

207. We are not in the business of creating a plethora of committees and groups. As NGOs, our resources are fairly lean. We do not want to have to traipse up to Dundonald House every month to attend a meeting.

208. Mr Elliott: Thank you very much for your presentation, gentlemen. It was very interesting.

209. Patrick, you said that you are holding out the hand of friendship to Forest Service, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) and the Government, and asking them to take on board your expertise. Are they accepting that hand of friendship?

210. Mr P Cregg: It has been accepted by certain Departments. We have a very close working relationship with the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). I am happy to say that, since we published our ancient woodland inventory in 2007, we have had a very close working relationship with the Planning Service. We are in the early stages of building a relationship with DARD and Forest Service. Some of the old barriers and suspicions are beginning to fall away, and, hopefully, we can move forward.

211. We received a letter this week from the Minister, inviting us to meet her civil servants at Forest Service to consider the legislation again. I do not know how that fits in with what the Committee is doing, but we will be taking up the Minister’s invitation.

212. Mr Elliott: I have a question about the felling licence. I believe that your primary concern is that ancient woodlands be protected, yet that is not specified in the Bill. You said that Forest Service is not required to obtain a felling licence, and I welcome your having raised that issue. Do you feel that, overall, the legislation has not got it right, or nearly right, on the issue of the felling licence?

213. Mr Lee Bruce (Woodland Trust): Our view is that ancient woodland could be protected simply by using the ancient woodland inventory. The legislation is not right at the moment, because it excludes at least 70% of the resource, and potentially more than that. We are not sure, but local government land might be exempted under the Bill, as might the entire Executive estate. The basic point to be made is that the legislation must cover everyone in order for it to be fair and proportionate and for there to be no commercial advantage.

214. Mr P Cregg: To be honest, it is ridiculous to propose to introduce a requirement for felling licences from which all Departments, their agencies and local councils will be exempted. That is to say, “Sod you" to the owners of the 30% of woodland that is in private ownership who will have to apply for a felling licence, while at the same time saying, “We are all right, Jack."

215. The Chairperson: The Government would never do that, Patrick. [Laughter.]

216. Mr Wood: There is the issue of the Government not applying the felling licence requirement to themselves, but another issue is what the felling licence offers. Forest management plans can be produced. However, it goes into the operational detail of what is planned for a particular day. One of the issues for us is disturbance to wildlife. A felling licence is an appropriate point for considering operationally what is to be done on site on a particular day; for example, a quick survey can be performed to check whether bats, birds or whatever are present. There are other legislative reasons for doing that anyway. Therefore, in a way, coming up with a system that enables landowners to do that helps to protect landowners.

217. Mr Elliott: I have one final point, even though we could get into a whole range of issues.

218. Do you believe that the Bill is giving far too much overall control of Northern Ireland’s forestry and woodland to Forest Service?

219. Mr P Cregg: If I were suspicious, and I am suspicious, I would say that the Bill gives absolute power to Forest Service to go on to land, to clear it of any debris, to buy land whether landowners want to sell it or not, and to tell landowners whether or not they can cut down trees.

220. Mr Elliott: Therefore, the answer to my question is yes.

221. Mr P Cregg: The Bill gives Forest Service absolute power.

222. The Chairperson: Is it fair to characterise the legislation as draconian?

223. Mr P Cregg: “Draconian" is a word that I might use. The Woodland Trust supports the need for legislation to improve commercial forestry and the environmental benefits of forestry. The trust sees no conflict between those concerns. The Woodland Trust and the RSPB are of the same mind — both organisations want to get the legislation right. If I have to wait until my children have grandchildren before the next piece of legislation is introduced in another 56 years’ time, at least we will have got it right this time and will have ensured that it is fit for purpose. The trust wants not to fight or argue with anyone but to help people and to move forward so that the legislation that is passed in the Assembly will be considered the gold standard for forestry, not just here but throughout Europe.

224. The Chairperson: The Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) has also described the Bill as draconian, so it is interesting to hear your view.

225. Mr Martin: There is no doubt that Forest Service needs certain powers that will be provided for in the Bill. However, those powers must be appropriate and must be exercised in a manner that has multiple benefits, and not simply favour commercial, social or environmental interests alone. There must be an appropriate mix, and the powers in the Bill must be reasonable.

226. Mr Shannon: It is good to see you, gentlemen, and you, Patrick, in particular. We have fought a few battles together on various issues.

227. Mr P Cregg: We were on the same side, however.

228. Mr Shannon: Yes, and we won most of those battles, by and large. In your presentation, you clearly outlined your concerns about the compulsory acquisition of land powers in the Bill, and you answered questions from the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson on those issues. However, I want to explore a different aspect. I was concerned to learn that only 0·08% of Northern Ireland land is woodland. That is quite worrying, so it is a question of incentives. I agree with you when you say that it is not just about Sitka spruce trees but about hardwood trees.

229. I should add that, having received a DARD grant for tree planting, I am duty-bound to declare an interest.

230. The Chairperson: Thank you, Jim.

231. Mr Elliott: I should have declared an interest, too.

232. The Chairperson: Does anyone else want to squeal? Did you get a grant to cut down trees, Jim?

233. Mr Shannon: The purpose of my having trees is probably different from everyone else’s. I am looking forward to shooting pigeons in them. [Laughter.] If I am spared, my trees will grow and reach their full height long after I have passed on. Nevertheless, it is important to have greater incentives to plant hardwood trees. How should that happen? What would you like to see in the Bill that would encourage the planting of hardwood trees, and the creation of what might become ancient woodlands as a result?

234. Mr P Cregg: The third point that I made was that there was a lack of an inventory of the location of woodlands across Northern Ireland. With such an inventory, grants could be targeted to obtain the benefits of creating new woodlands adjacent to existing native woodland, and to create new woodlands in urban areas in order to reap social and educational benefits. The Woodland Trust has gone a stage further and piloted a programme in Great Britain that gives people a top-up grant to the grant that they already receive from Forest Service. The trust wants to introduce something similar in Northern Ireland.

235. Therefore, if someone is really keen to create new native woodland, we will look at how we might give a grant on top of Forest Service’s grant, in order to encourage landowners to plant trees. Farmers must have a financially viable business. It is all very well for me to stand on the edge of the road in my duffel coat and sandals saying, “Plant more trees."

236. Mr Shannon: Wellies.

237. Mr P Cregg: Yes, wellies are appropriate. Incentives are needed to encourage farmers and to show them that it is financially viable for them to plant trees, and we need to look at the wider benefits accruing to us as a people from farmers’ actions. We have the countryside that we have only because of the husbandry of successive generations, in some cases from the same family, who have maintained the countryside on our behalf. We must look at how we reward that husbandry for the wider benefits that accrue to those of us who live in towns and visit the countryside to enjoy it.

(The Deputy Chairperson [Mr Elliott] in the Chair)

238. Mr Shannon: In your presentation, you spoke about part 2 of the Bill, “Protection of forest trees from damage". It includes clause 10, “Removal or destruction of vegetation on adjoining land". This is a moot point, but the importance of managing dead wood on an ancient woodland site is sometimes lost on us. When a tree falls, what happens? Fellers hit the chainsaw and cut it up for firewood. We may need to be aware that there is more to it than that, and that is why I am glad that you referred to it. Can you clarify that matter for the benefit of the Committee?

239. Mr Bruce: That is an example that I was going to use to illustrate how the powers in the Bill are not well defined, and where we need to reconsider how to ensure that if we are managing dead wood in an ancient woodland, Forest Service will not, for example, simply go in and clear it because it might be a potential threat to an adjacent site. As a result of the existing legislation, which is 56 years old, current Forest Service incumbents may say that they will never do that. However, what happens when their replacements arrive, and new policies are debated? It is therefore essential that the legislation be accurate and correct.

240. Mr Shannon: John suggested establishing a stakeholder advisory committee, which is a suggestion that was made to the Committee in other submissions. Woodland can be used for various purposes, such as off-road driving, whether on quad bikes or in cars, fishing, deer shooting, and so on. Whom do you envisage being part of that stakeholder advisory committee, and what do you see its role as being? Would everyone who has the opportunity to use Forest Service land or woodland be eligible for membership, and, if so, is all such land included?

241. Mr Martin: I totally agree that there are many different forest users, who use forests for different pursuits. I am a keen mountain biker, and I would like to see more mountain-bike provision for forestry land in the Bill, but that is besides the point.

242. Membership of the stakeholder advisory committee should be drawn from different interests. If such a committee were to be proposed in the Bill, it should represent the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, the economic and social interests of private woodland, and environmental interests, with Forest Service and Departments acting in an advisory role.

243. That committee’s role should remain advisory. That might result in the removal of power from it, but I can see no other way in which it would work unless it were given special powers. I am not sure how that would work in legislation, but such committees in the rest of the UK act in an advisory capacity.

244. The Deputy Chairperson: I would, however, caution against setting up another talking shop.

245. Mr Wood: It is quite possible to include a clause in the Bill that explains, in general terms, the membership of the stakeholder advisory committee. For example, such a clause could provide for representation to be carved in three equal ways among social, environmental and economic sectors, attributing a set number of members to each sector. It could also include what proportion of its members would come from government. There would be no need to list individual organisations, because those would change over time.

246. I agree that, given the committee’s advisory role, it is in danger of becoming a talk shop. Unfortunately, it is the Department that will be empowered by the Act and not said advisory committee. That is the nature of these things.

247. In other places, where such an advisory committee exists, it can apply an almost statutory element to the requirement to have a felling licence. Therefore, the advisory committee could be included in the clause about referrals — I am sorry, I do not have chapter and verse on that — so that it would be formally consulted on difficult and contentious cases. That is not quite the same as advising on sentencing policy; however, involving the advisory committee in quite detailed cases, and in making policy recommendations and issuing good practice guidance from a particular case, means that it could be used in such a role. However, I do recognise that it could become a talking shop.

248. Mr Shannon: Sometimes, advisory committees in the Province have been effective. They do not necessarily become talking shops, and, sometimes, they do play a role. Government bodies sit on those advisory committees, too. That may be what an advisory committee really is. Forest Service or DARD must be included, but it must not be made up of them alone. Stakeholders are not only people who use forests and woodland but those who own the land.

249. Mr Wood: I sit on the equivalent committee in Wales. At a meeting a couple of weeks ago, we discussed in some detail the national forestry strategy and implementation plan. Rather than just rely on a public consultation, the advisory committee can help with the more detailed drafting issues.

250. Mr W Clarke: Thank you for your presentation.

251. I agree that there should be a stakeholder management group. That would be a useful mechanism for examining the priorities and stresses in forestry management, deciding what moneys are available, and allocating such moneys to areas in which pressures have been identified. For example, money could be put into timber production. Moreover, social and health benefits could be derived from building log cabins or providing mountain-biking facilities. Such a group could pool money and then decide on priorities. However, we are still a bit away from that happening, and it will take a brave bit of work to achieve that level playing field.

252. I agree with most of what Jim Shannon said. Climate change is a big issue for me, but it is not even mentioned in the Bill.

253. The Deputy Chairperson: I do not think that Jim mentioned climate change.

254. Mr W Clarke: He usually does.

255. Mr Shannon: I am not aware that I did, but I agree with the Member’s comments.

256. Mr W Clarke: Environmental protection, quality of life, health, and energy provision are all important. For example, we need to explore how far biomass can go to reducing carbon emissions, and to what extent it may provide a living for people in rural communities. Therefore, such provisions should be included in the Bill.

257. Climate change and carbon emissions are important issues for communities. There should be a greater onus on us to create forests closer to communities, and there are two main reasons for that. First, a reduction in carbon emissions would have are the health and social benefits. Secondly, we need to consider how communities can integrate with forests, instead of forests being 50 miles away from a community. Other climate change issues involved include timber production, and how that timber is harvested.

258. Hardwood forests and carbon sinks should be built beside urban communities, because cars, big businesses, and so on, emit carbon in towns and cities. To reduce carbon emissions, a levy should be placed on businesses, particularly the large multinational supermarkets, some of which probably work with you already.

259. The Deputy Chairperson: I notice, Willie, that you will a number of amendments to the Bill to table. [Laughter.]

260. Mr W Clarke: My point is that climate change is never mentioned. This is probably one of the most important Bills to go through the House. Climate change has a major impact on us, yet it is not even mentioned in the Bill.

261. There must be a greater focus on preventing flooding, which is linked to climate change, and on using forestry to reduce flooding in communities. You probably want me to ask a question now, Deputy Chairperson.

262. The Deputy Chairperson: Yes.

263. Mr W Clarke: Jim asked my question, which concerned how we, through the Forestry Bill, can ensure that more trees are planted. The Executive could include a health grant, on top of the forestry grant, in the Bill. Greater emphasis must be placed on what forests can do for communities. Departments need to provide such a grant.

264. Mr P Cregg: Forest Service’s strategy clearly states that it will double woodland cover in Northern Ireland over the next 50 years. To do that, it is necessary to create 1,650 hectares — remember that figure — of new woodland each year for 50 years. However, in the Programme for Government, which the Executive agreed, the commitment is to create approximately 550 hectares each year. The two figures are out of sync. Which figure are we working towards? Are the Executive the ultimate authority or is it Forest Service?

265. Given the level of achievement of the Programme for Government figure to date and overall achievement since 1973, we have no hope of achieving the lesser figure of 550 hectares. Therefore, we suggest that if the Executive are agreeing targets, somebody must be held to account. It is not good enough for the Executive to make a commitment to the electorate on what acreage of woodland will be created each year for the next three years, or for the duration of the Programme for Government, if nobody bothers to monitor the target or check its progress. Grumpy old men such as me will be in the wings shouting and complaining. Departments must be accountable, either to the Committee or to their Minister. If the Executive say that 550 hectares of woodland must be created each year, somebody should ask at the end of the year how they got on.

266. The Deputy Chairperson: To be fair, that question has been asked and answered. We need to determine how the Department and Forest Service will achieve their targets, because they are not hitting their own markers. They need to find a mechanism, in conjunction with this Committee, the Woodland Trust, the RSPB and the rest of the industry, to agree on way forward.

267. Mr Bruce: The Bill contains two important aspects: the general duty to address the issue of creating new native woods on the right site with the right trees; and the establishment of a system to monitor the success of the inventory, and, once and for all, to collate, manage and perennially update it.

268. I trawled Assembly questions and found one on sustainable development targets, one of which is the same as the Executive’s woodland creation target of 550 hectares a year. The question asked how much progress had been made on achieving that target and the reply stated that it could not be measured, because loss could not be measured. That Executive commitment is not being delivered, because they simply cannot measure the loss and, therefore, cannot measure aforestation.

269. Mr W Clarke: Has an economic study been carried out that compares the value of hardwood with softwood to tourism, environmental habitats, and health and well-being?

270. Mr P Cregg: Not so much has been done to measure the value of one against the other, but studies that have been undertaken by organisations such as health trusts in the West Midlands have measured how a green and treed environment assists patients’ recovery rates. Such studies have enabled a figure to be calculated of savings made to the National Health Service by getting people out of wards and care homes more quickly. The West Midlands authority was being saved around £500,000 a year by having its patients in hospitals from which they could look out at treed areas.

271. Mr Martin: Further to that, it is really important to have Northern Ireland-specific research. We often draw on findings from across the UK, but unless we have data that is specific to Northern Ireland, we will not be able to deliver on concrete, enduring policies.

272. Mr Wood: A UK forestry research strategy is due for review. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) organised that on behalf of the UK, and I mean not just GB but GB and Northern Ireland. Forest Service is involved in that, and it should be due for review, which is one reason that we suggested that an advisory body should advise on research priorities and programmes that relate to sustainable forest management in Northern Ireland.

273. Dr W McCrea: Our role is to scrutinise — we are here to hear your views rather than your being here to hear ours. When you talk about the general duty of promoting forests, you make it abundantly clear that forestry land does not simply include Forest Service land but takes in all Government land, local council land, and all the rest of it. Is it correct that that is a provision that you want included in the Bill, rather than, as it stands, have the general promotion of forestry linked to Forest Service?

274. Mr Wood: Exactly.

275. Dr W McCrea: However, you have no objection to compulsory powers per se, but are you saying that Forest Service should be subject to the rigours of public benefit tests when it comes to the power to dispose of sites or alter land use?

276. Mr Wood: Exactly.

277. Dr W McCrea: You consider the failure to state that clearly in the Bill to be a great weakness. A vital part of your submission states that ancient and long-established woodlands must have proper, absolute protection. Do you believe the protection that is afforded in the Bill as drafted not to be adequate? If it is not, how can it be achieved in the Bill?

278. Mr P Cregg: The point of “absolute" protection is very important. The destruction of ancient woodland — a finite resource — must be a no-no. We are asking for the Bill to include a presumption against granting licences for people who wish to destroy ancient woodland.

279. Dr W McCrea: Both of your presentations state that a third of that ancient woodland has already been degraded. That is not an acceptable position. Are the Woodland Trust and the RSPB asking for steps to be taken to restore that land?

280. Mr P Cregg: Yes.

281. Dr W McCrea: The felling licence requirement appears to be important to the trust and the society. Here we have Forest Service, which owns 70% of existing woodland, stating that everybody else but it must comply with the felling licence requirement.

282. You are making it abundantly clear that that is another totally unacceptable position.

283. You talked about the inventory of woodlands that are under your control and the knowledge that you have. Would it not have been sensible and natural for the Government to have already got that inventory? If they do have the inventory, is there some hesitation in the Government to give it to others so that everyone can have the overall information? If an advisory panel does not have the information, it cannot give the appropriate advice. If the Government do not have that inventory, why not? They must attain that information as a matter of urgency.

284. Mr P Cregg: That is a very good point. The position is quite clear: how can you protect the environment if you do not know what is out there? Creating the inventory will not be a mammoth task. Lots of organisations, including the RSPB, the Woodland Trust, the National Trust, the Environment Agency and the Forest Service, have information and are willing to share it. Sharing the information would be a desk exercise; it would not be a major imposition on the public purse. We would know, once and for all, whether 6% of the country is covered in woodland, or 9% or something in between. We would know exactly what the task to double woodland cover would involve.

285. Dr W McCrea: You talked about establishing a stakeholder advisory body. We certainly do not want to create another quango, because I assure you that the public will not accept more quangos. The public want the dismissal of a pile of quangos from the past, rather than the introduction of new ones. However, if I have picked it up correctly, you are not suggesting that; you are suggesting that an advisory body, rather than an official body, be set up. That would be advantageous in that, although the Department may dismiss what it says, the Committee would be able to scrutinise why the Department dismissed those comments. It would be another part of the gathering of information to be able to make judgement calls.

286. I am delighted that you received an invitation to meet the Department. To date, what in-depth discussions have you had with the Department on the Bill? Has the Department acknowledged your views by making relevant changes, or do you feel that it has been somewhat dismissive of your views?

287. Mr Wood: To be fair to Forest Service, the RSPB was invited to a stakeholder meeting in July, once the Bill was in the public domain. A range of other organisations was there, and a constructive discussion took place that covered detailed issues, many of which have been raised today. We gave our opinion on various aspects of the Bill, including where we thought that it was deficient. We felt that it was not quite a new beginning for Forest Service, but we welcomed the positive engagement. That is the kind of engagement that we expect from an advisory body, which would work hard and include detailed thinking.

288. Dr W McCrea: You said that that engagement process was constructive. The engagement should have been instructive as well as constructive. However, after that process, the Bill was produced, and all those aspects were not included. Therefore, how constructive was the engagement process in truth? It was a pleasant experience, but the Bill still contains the weaknesses that you mentioned. In many ways, the Bill is a regurgitation of old legislation.

289. Mr Wood: The discussion took place after the Bill was in the public domain, not before. The only consultation that took place was when Forest Service wrote to us in 2008 with a general enquiry stating that the forestry strategy contains a broad commitment to introduce a new Bill and asking us what we thought should be in that Bill. There was no detailed proposal, so it was very difficult to try to work out what was being asked of us. We had to look at the 1953 legislation and work out how we thought that it should be improved. It was disappointing that there were no detailed proposals.

290. However, after the Bill was in the public domain, we had a discussion with Forest Service. It is really a matter of how detailed the discussion is from this point on. I would have preferred to have talked to Forest Service in more detail at an earlier stage, but that did not happen.

291. The Deputy Chairperson: The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and we will see how many changes the service is prepared to make.

292. Mr P Cregg: Dr McCrea and I visited Dundonald House many years ago to raise those very issues with Forest Service in the run up to the introduction of the forestry strategy for Northern Ireland. We did not see much reflection of our discussions in that strategy, nor are we now seeing much —

293. The Deputy Chairperson: So maybe it is not really a new Forest Service at all, Patrick.

294. Mr P Cregg: It is in that Forest Service is willing to listen and to talk to us.

295. Mr Irwin: Thank you for your presentation, which raised many valid points. I am a farmer myself, so I know fine well some of the difficulties that will arise. Farmers will not take very kindly to being told that Forest Service will have absolute power to do what it likes. You can tell a farmer that when you are trying to get him to plant trees.

296. An inventory of all woodland is the very first thing that should be created. That is common sense. However, I foresee difficulties. I have always said that I cannot see the woodland cover in Northern Ireland doubling unless a completely different approach is taken. As a farmer, I see no encouragement to plant trees. That is part of the problem.

297. Mr Cregg: I agree entirely. That is why I said that we need to consider the incentives. The farming community are the custodians of the countryside that we town folk enjoy. We get on our bike, on a bus or in our cars and go out and enjoy the countryside and come back home in the evenings. There must be incentives, given the enjoyment that we get from the countryside. Those incentives need to go to the custodians, the farmers, who manage that land and try to make a living from it.

298. Mr Deputy Chairperson: Thank you all for your presentations and your input. We know that you have the best interests of the industry at heart.

24 November 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Pat Doherty
Dr William McCrea
Mr George Savage
Mr Jim Shannon

Witnesses:

Dr Lucinda Blakiston-Houston
Dr Hilary Kirkpatrick

Ulster Wildlife Trust

299. The Chairperson (Mr Paisley Jnr): I welcome Dr Lucinda Blakiston-Houston and Dr Hilary Kirkpatrick. Thank you for coming to this evidence session on the Forestry Bill. You may take a couple of moments to introduce yourselves, and, after you make your presentation, we will ask questions.

300. Dr Hilary Kirkpatrick (Ulster Wildlife Trust): Thank you very much. I am the policy officer of the Ulster Wildlife Trust (UWT), and Dr Lucinda Blakiston-Houston is a member of our council. The Ulster Wildlife Trust is the largest locally funded nature conservation charity, and we work for a natural environment that is rich in native wildlife and valued by everyone. We are a membership charity with 7,600 members who support our work. We thank the Committee for inviting us, and the Executive for introducing the Forestry Bill.

301. The Ulster Wildlife Trust welcomes the proposal that the Department’s responsibilities be widened to reflect the environmental, economic and social context of forestry. We suggest that that should include a statutory duty to further the conservation of biodiversity. That statutory duty would be in line with the proposed revision of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.

302. We ask that the Forestry Bill provide protection to ancient woodland, which accounts for less than 1% of the forest and woodland, and is particularly valuable. We also ask for some form of inventory of the current resource, because that allows for forward planning. When the Department seeks to develop land to obtain better value from the public estate, we would like to see any accounting process giving full weight to the provision of the ecosystem goods and services from that land, and not just to the value of forestry in terms of timber production.

303. In our consultation response, we mentioned the Irish hare, which is a priority species in the Northern Ireland biodiversity strategy. It is listed in the 1985 Order as a schedule 6 species, which means that it may not be killed or taken by certain methods. It is particularly covered by the habitats directive. The key factor of that directive is that we as a member state have a duty to maintain the favourable conservation status of the Irish hare. We recognise that there is a species protection Order on the Irish hare under the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928.

304. Hare numbers have been much higher in the past. There was a period of decline in the late 1980s and 1990s. In this decade, numbers are fluctuating, but they have remained more or less stable. The key for the Irish hare is to maintain the favourable conservation status. It is also a priority species in the Northern Ireland biodiversity strategy. We flagged up the Irish hare during the consultation because the Bill gives wide powers to the Forest Service and private landowners to take action to control hare numbers. We would like the Committee to scrutinise those powers, given the importance of the Irish hare as an endemic species.

305. The Chairperson: When you initially wrote to us, some members of the Committee were concerned about that point, and I have some good news. We have received word from the Department that the Irish hare will be removed from the definition of “wild animal", and those additional protections will be asserted. That is a positive move, and something that we will welcome. That shows local democracy working. You contacted us, as did other groups, about that issue and we pursued the matter. The initial response from the Department indicates that they agree with us on that point. You can pat yourselves on the back for raising the issue in your correspondence.

306. Dr Kirkpatrick: Thank you very much; that is good news. We were aware that the Minister raised that issue during the Second Stage of the Bill, and that the Department was dealing with it. It is a pleasure to see that local democracy is working for one of our native species.

307. In some cases, there is a lack of clarity on the language in relation to definitions of “forest" and “woodland". We are not proposing a particular solution; we would like the Committee and the Department to look at that in a little more detail to ensure consistency in the use of language. There is no formal definition of “forest" as such in the UK. There is a definition of “woodland", which is land that is under stands of trees with a canopy cover of at least 20%. In the case of Northern Ireland, that is 25%. We are simply flagging up some terminological issues that it would be useful to resolve.

308. The Chairperson: How do you place a value on and measure ecosystems?

309. Dr Kirkpatrick: It is quite difficult. These are all land management issues that are difficult to grasp. It is easy to place a value on timber production; the market gives a value. However, land delivers lots of things that are not so easy to value in the market. Many Committee members come from a farming background and will have a lot of experience of farming matters through their membership of the Committee. To use the example of a family farm, a farmer may have capital in the form of money in the bank that allows him to invest in upgrading machinery, innovations and building new accommodation for animals and so on, but he also has other forms of capital, such as the quality of the land, the way in which his grandfather or great-grandfather looked after that land, and the state of the hedges and fences. To some extent, that counts as environmental capital. The farmer also has other factors, such as social capital, which could be the fact that he has six strapping sons who can help with the milking, or the fact that he has good neighbours who are willing to help out if he is ill.

310. That is a good way of explaining that. There are lots of things that land delivers and there is a lot of capital locally that is not always captured by the market but is crucial for success. One of the challenges of developing public policy is to ensure that some of the stuff that is not easily valued in the market is taken into account.

311. Dr Lucinda Blakiston-Houston (Ulster Wildlife Trust): Another area mentioned in the report and worth looking at is the fact that some ecosystem services, such as flood plain management and things like that, have a direct economic benefit, especially bearing in mind what is happening today. There are certain environmental services that impact directly on the economic performance of society.

312. The Chairperson: It can be quite a subjective measurement.

313. Dr Blakiston-Houston: Yes. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee has carried out some work on ecosystems, and it is looking at how we put that into an economic evaluation. We should be using our natural infrastructure. The Government invests an awful lot in their infrastructure programmes through the Strategic Investment Board. Why not also invest in our natural infrastructure? The forest is part of that.

314. Dr Kirkpatrick: Any accounting process should not be just about the Forest Service budget, but the budget across the whole of government. It may well be that Forest Service, in managing its estate, is saving money in such areas as flood control.

315. The Chairperson: I am glad that you brought up that point. Is there a sufficient link between other departmental responsibilities, policies and strategies? Or do you feel that you are hung out there without that support?

316. Dr Kirkpatrick: There are links. There is a clear link, for example, to biodiversity responsibilities and the functions of the Department of the Environment. There is also a link if stricter carbon budgets come up, as there is a lot of carbon locked up not only in trees, but in land in the forest estate. Peatland soils are good at holding back water, so, again, there is that link to flood management and flood control. I do not want to anticipate work that might be done by the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) or other research organisations, but there is a possibility of putting more quantification on that. That scientific research is going on elsewhere.

317. Dr Blakiston-Houston: You talk about the cross-linking of strategies, and there are a lot of cross-cutting strategies in government. We are good at putting those strategies forward, but not so good at linking between Departments to achieve the outcomes of the strategies. One typical example that Forest Service has recognised is the effect that Fit Futures can have on the mental and physical well-being. Local use of the forest is an important part of the strategy. People can own the forest and feel that it is part of them.

318. Water management and flood plains were also mentioned. The Forest of Bowland in Lancashire is, I think, owned by water utilities. It has a strategy in which any water that falls on its land is kept for two days before it hits the river. That plays a part in flood control, but it also contributes to the cleaning of the water for drinking purposes. It means that there are less cleaning costs involved with the cleaning process. There is a similar operation in New York, near Manhattan. So there are areas where land has been used as an ecosystem.

319. The Chairperson: Central Park?

320. Dr Blakiston-Houston: No. It is in a flooding area, which has salt marshes. When development costs got so great, the system was good for them economically because it lowered water-cleaning costs. There are examples around the world where these things are coming forward. It stresses the importance of the environment in delivering social and economic benefit to society. There are a few such examples around, and it would be great to have a few in Northern Ireland.

321. Dr Kirkpatrick: The water example is also a good one. One of the big expenses in cleaning water is the colouration; the brown colour from the peaty soils has to be taken out. The costs of that process have been calculated in the Peak District in England, and they are considering paying farmers for managing their land in a way that reduces the amount of colour in the water from their land. There are synergies with other areas of government.

322. The Chairperson: Has an appropriate balance been struck in the Bill between commercial interests and the needs of an organisation such as your own, and the needs that you have identified in your presentation?

323. Dr Kirkpatrick: It is important that that balance be struck, and it is stated that there is a balance. In many of these instances, it comes down to the specific details, and that is often where guidance comes in. It is a balancing act. We are advocating on behalf of our members, who have an interest in wildlife. Government is in a different position.

324. The Chairperson: Have they got that balance right? That is the crux of what we are doing. We have to make sure that we get the Bill right. If there are areas where you think that the balance is wrong, tell us now, because it will give us the opportunity to explore those matters with the Government.

325. Dr Kirkpatrick: The guidance will be absolutely crucial. There is a balance to be struck between the different aspects, but specific incidents may tell you whether the balance is right.

326. Dr Blakiston-Houston: It is important to know the outcomes that you want to achieve from the Bill and that you have the data to ensure that you are achieving them. For example, if you are looking at woodland cover, you need to know what sort of woodland cover you want to encourage. If there is a commercial interest, you need to know the outcome of that interest, so that you have the social, economic and environmental balance. There is a lot of legislation, but we do not always know its effect because we have not put in the data collection procedures for it. We talked about protecting the Irish hare in the woodland; that would be a great opportunity to ensure that we are collecting the correct data to see the damage that people say the Irish hare is causing.

327. The Chairperson: The public opinion survey indicated that there are three key things: places to walk; places for wildlife to inhabit; and improvement of the countryside. In respect of those three areas, do you think that the balance is right in the Bill?

328. Dr Kirkpatrick: The focus is still very much on commercial forestry, and there are opportunities to do more for the other aspects. It is natural that the Forest Service is good at growing trees, because it has been doing that for a long time. It has also been diversifying into other areas, and there are opportunities to do that, particularly in relation to providing public access, contributing to the development of tourism and contributing to furthering biodiversity conservation. It would be useful to ensure that those areas were strengthened in the Bill.

329. The Chairperson: Do you think that it is tending to be too commercial?

330. Dr Kirkpatrick: Again, it comes down to the balance. It is a commercial operation, and it will have to make money, but that does not necessarily conflict with the other aims. For example, there is a lot of opportunity to attract tourists. It helps the regional economy, but it does not necessarily conflict with the functions of providing places for wildlife to live in. You can try to achieve some of those win-win situations.

331. The Chairperson: To put the question the other way around: is it not commercial enough in some regards?

332. Dr Kirkpatrick: There are opportunities to develop tourism, for example, which is potentially a growth area. In straitened economic times, there are opportunities to give people more opportunities to spend locally, whether they come from within the island of Ireland or are visiting here rather than going on long-haul holidays.

333. Mr Shannon: Are you anything to the Blakiston-Houstons in Ballyhalbert? Is that a connection of yours? This is by the way, but I happened to see your name.

334. Dr Blakiston-Houston: Ballywalter.

335. Mr Shannon: Are you Dick’s wife?

336. Dr Blakiston-Houston: Yes.

337. Mr Shannon: I know your husband well. He does a bit of shooting.

338. The Chairperson: Careful; the next question is dinner.

339. Mr Shannon: I have met him at a couple of events and have known the family for many years.

340. The Chairperson: I must remind you that the session is being recorded by Hansard.

341. Dr Blakiston-Houston: I want to state for the record that my husband is a private forester.

342. The Chairperson: We expect you to have a stake in these matters. That is why we are asking for your expertise.

343. Mr Shannon: I am very interested in your view of the future of forestry. The Chairman touched on it when he referred to the places to walk, places for wildlife, and improvement of the countryside landscape. However, it is more than that. Do you see forestry having any other uses aside from those three factors?

344. Dr Blakiston-Houston: Those core factors are quite specific. However, forests form part of the world’s breathing lungs. That is recognised everywhere, and we look at the Amazon as having the potential to save us. We, too, have an important role to play by ensuring that our forestry here is working.

345. Different types of forestry provide different social benefits. For example, some of those benefits may be in commercial production, but social and recreational facilities may also be provided. Some people may prefer to live in broadleaf woodlands, which provide a very different type of environment to a commercial environment. Those people may not want the same kinds of recreational facilities that exist elsewhere. Therefore, the Forest Service needs to have a strategic overview of forestry on a Northern Ireland basis, which means creating link ups. Climate change is coming. Some forests and species will be able to benefit from that, but others will not. We must also allow for the fact that some species may need to be more mobile. Given that, we will need to provide wildlife motorways that allow that mobility. A strategic overview for the whole of Northern Ireland is needed to ensure that the link ups that I spoke of can be created.

346. The UWT supports landscape scale, and forestry is part of landscape scale projects. That means looking at the environment subjectively, such as thinking about how pretty it looks and whether it needs forests, but it also means providing the facilities that will allow nature to stay with us as much as possible. Man will cope with climate change one way or another because we have technology. However, at the end of the climate change process, we may not have the quality of life that we want. Forests can help us to maintain our quality of life and our status in the whole environmental system.

347. Sometimes, that service is not recognised. It is not something that can be put in a Bill, yet we know in our heart of hearts that what we should have it. It is difficult to legislate for that, but it is one of the outcomes. The Bill looks at the commercial side of forestry and at the social and economic factors that are involved. However, compromises will be made, and it is for the Committee to decide where they will be made. The Committee also needs to decide whether to make the Forest Service a commercial company or a government company that delivers goods and services to society as a whole. Those are the sorts of issues that the Committee will be discussing when examining the Bill.

348. Other services include flood control. However, that will not happen if forests are run commercially. I live in Gortin in County Tyrone — Pat Doherty is my MP — and our salmon river, the Owenkillew, is now a flash river. It rises and falls at a huge rate, which means that if fishermen are being encouraged to come, it is often not known whether the fishing will be good. This year, it was really bad for us, because the salmon were waiting to come up, and at one point the river was flowing too fast for fishing. When conditions were good for fishing, we suddenly had dry weather and no water. In fact, the fish came the day after the season closed. Such circumstances are not good for the tourist industry.

349. A lot of people would say that drainage above that level caused the river to rise. I was chairman of the Council of Northern Caving Clubs (CNCC), as you may have realised, and we argued strongly for the sponge to be put back into the environment so that water could be held and allowed to sit in the ground before flowing away. Sometimes, you want water to flow away a bit more quickly from some areas than others, but in the uplands, the caves were our sponge. We had watermills in the eighteenth century, but they are not there now because our streams are not performing as they used to.

350. Therefore, appropriate planting is needed, and it must be known whether that planting is being done for commercial timber, social and economic good or the environment. That is what I mean by having a good, strategic overview. The Forest Service is our major owner of forestry land, and those are the sorts of issues that I, as an individual citizen and not necessarily as a representative of the UWT, would hope to come out of that vast reserve. I want that strategic lead to exist in the delivery of social, economic and environmental goods.

351. Mr Shannon: I am aware of the importance of native broadleaf trees and non-native conifers, and I am sure that other Committee members are also aware of that. You spoke about those when you discussed whether a forest is a commercial environment or whether it provides recreational activities. It is clear that the Department must offer incentives in the Forestry Bill for the planting of more trees. Do you think that there should be different levels of support, grant or incentives? In other words, should there be a greater incentive for planting broadleaf trees, which have no immediate commercial value, as opposed to conifer-type planting, with which there is quicker development and more opportunities?

352. Dr Blakiston-Houston: The grants should be focused on what they want to achieve. For example, if social grants are provided, they should have social outcomes. If commercial grants are provided, they should have commercial outcomes.

353. I would love to see more planting of broadleaf trees. We have talked about carbon credits for planting trees and so on. People have talked about biomass, and the Bill deals with short-rotation coppicing. On the continent, people manage their broadleaf forests in a huge way. They fell, take out wood and use that wood. We should begin to consider the opportunities for commercial interests of the broadleaf in areas such as furniture. A lot of carbon is stored in the furniture in this room at the moment. It is locked away, hopefully, for a very long time. Therefore, forestry means more than just what is growing in the ground. It gives much more to society. However, that is probably outside the terms of today’s meeting.

354. Mr Shannon: Do you feel that individual farmers and landowners who plant trees should be allowed to manage the woodlands that they have created, or should there be some outside influence? I am keen to get your opinion.

355. Dr Kirkpatrick: There is no strong tradition of woodland management here. Farmers would welcome advice from the Department on that. In some other countries, there is a tradition of managing woodlands with a long-term perspective. In response to your earlier question, forestry aims to make a long-term future investment, not only on behalf of this generation but on behalf of generations to come. The incentives must reflect that, because farmers have the choice between planting a crop that will achieve a return within months and planting a crop that they will not see a return on; their children or grandchildren will see that return. That is a difficult decision to make without some form of incentive.

356. The second question was, in a sense, about how much guidance to give to farmers and landowners. A balance must be struck between completely controlling somebody’s business activity, which is not acceptable in democratic society, and the need to provide guidance. The Department does that already through projects such as the Northern Ireland countryside management scheme, which helps farmers to meet targets and which provides specialist advice. The College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) also provides advice. If we are to move to a culture in which more farmers and private landowners become involved in planting woodland, it is important that the support is there and is provided to them to enable them to make business decisions about what route to take and to show them how to get the best return and how to manage the timber.

357. Dr W McCrea: Thank you for your presentation. Dr Kirkpatrick, in your opening remarks you mentioned a number of times the need to strike a balance. I think that the Chairperson was trying to get you to make a judgement call on behalf of those who you are representing today. To be frank, you danced around that but never answered whether you feel that the balance in the Bill is correct. You said that compromises may be made between commercial and other considerations and that we would have to make a judgement on what the Bill should say on that. However, we can often make a judgement call only on the basis of the evidence that is given to us.

358. I am sorry to press you, but I must ask you about that again. Your submission states:

“We would welcome clarification of the phrase “in a balanced manner"."

359. What are you looking for? A few moments ago, we talked about promoting commercial value by considering what the end result should be and applying for grants on that basis. You are looking for clarification of what is meant by “in a balanced manner", and I am looking for clarification on what you believe should be the correct balance in the Bill.

360. The Committee will have to make a judgement call on what the correct balance is, because the Bill has been presented to us for our consideration. We can do that with confidence only if we take into account all the relevant interests and views. What you say to us will be vital to any judgement call that I may make.

361. Dr Kirkpatrick: That balance can be achieved by ensuring that the Bill includes a statutory duty to promote sustainable development, and a statutory duty to further the conservation of biodiversity would also help. What happens on a particular piece of land often comes down to detailed economic decisions on which other considerations are taken into account. I cannot give you those detailed economic answers because I do not have a team of forest economists to ask.

362. Dr W McCrea: Your submission states: “We would suggest that this should include a statutory duty to further the conservation of biodiversity."

363. What is the statutory duty that you are asking us to ensure is included?

364. Dr Blakiston-Houston: Hilary may correct me, but I understand that the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 includes a statutory duty on all Departments to further the concept of biodiversity. If such a statutory duty were written into the Bill, the Forest Service would have to fulfil its duties under the biodiversity strategy. That would be right, and we want provision for that in the Bill.

365. Dr W McCrea: I notice that you said that the environmental context of forestry should be taken into account in the Department’s promotion and provision of forestry education. What, specifically, do you want in the Bill that would cover that?

366. Dr Kirkpatrick: We want the Department to promote not only timber but the other benefits that come from forestry. That will require public education and education of the people who work for the Forest Service. That is not to claim that those people do not know about those benefits already, but if there is to be formal education and training, it should include the other factors that we have been discussing today.

367. Dr W McCrea: You spoke about what was in the Bill, and you then emphasised the guidance. Should the duties that you suggested be in the Bill, or is the guidance that comes with the Bill the appropriate place for them?

368. Dr Blakiston-Houston: Which is more legally binding?

369. Dr W McCrea: The only one that is legally binding is the Bill; guidance is exactly that — guidance.

370. Dr Kirkpatrick: I think that you have given us the answer.

371. Dr W McCrea: You seem to suggest that there is a lack of clarification in the Bill about what is meant by the terms “forestry", “woodland" and “forest cover". You suggest that the consultation document uses those phrases interchangeably; indeed, your submission asks why no mention of “woods" is made. You said that there is some inconsistency in the way that the terms are being used in a document that your submission referred to. Again, what are you looking for? What term should be used consistently?

372. Dr Kirkpatrick: I do not have a legal background, but it may be useful to have a legal definition of what the Bill covers. For example, there is an ancient woodland inventory that gives statutory definitions and enables ancient woodlands to be identified legally. It may be useful to have a statutory definition of what constitutes a forest or a wood. The definition may change depending on whether the primary function is to deliver commercial or social opportunities. However, that is not to say that a group of trees cannot deliver more than one function.

373. It is helpful if everyone in a discussion understands that they are talking about the same thing. For example, I sit on the monitoring committee of the Northern Ireland rural development programme. We have detailed discussions, and there are times when I try to picture the piece of land that someone is talking about and what it would look like if I visited it. I may have a created a mental picture of one thing, but it then gradually emerges that the person is talking about something else. That makes it difficult to have clarity in a discussion about objectives.

374. I used to teach in a university, and students from other European countries would often take my course. They have precise terms for forestry, but one lecturer who taught them would use one term and another lecturer would use a different term. Those students, particularly the Germans, were completely confused by that. It is partly the English language that causes that problem, but the law must be clear and easily interpretable.

375. The Chairperson: The Bill provides some definitions. Indeed, clause 1 outlines that: “‘forest’ includes woodland;

‘forestry’ includes—

(a) the development of afforestation, the production and supply of forest products and the maintenance of adequate reserves of growing trees;

(b) the management and development of forestry land so as to—

(i) contribute to the protection of the environment; and

(ii) encourage the enjoyment of that land by the public;

‘forestry land’ means any land held by the Department for the purposes of its functions under this Act;

‘forest products’ means timber and other products derived from, or produced in the course of, forestry."

376. Dr Blakiston-Houston: However, the word “forest" is used in some parts of the Bill, and in other parts, the word “woods" is used. Why use two different words if a forest includes woods? In a layperson’s terms, the word “forest" is often regarded as concerning commercial timber, whereas “woods" makes people think of somewhere that they may like to take a walk. The layperson may not read the Bill anyway, but there seems to be an inconsistency in using the two terms together.

377. The Chairperson: If you outline for us examples of where there is no clarity in the Bill, we will return to the Department and ask for clarification.

378. What is the range and scope of the biodiversity duties that you mentioned? What sort of burden would those duties place on people if we insisted on them?

379. Dr Kirkpatrick: We signed up to certain duties at the 1992 Earth Summit under the terms of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Therefore, we have obligations as an EU member state and through the UK Government. Those obligations cascade down to devolved Administrations, so a framework is in place already. Other matters, such as the habitats directive and the birds directive, also have a bearing. Some 20% of the land that the Forest Service owns is part of the Natura 2000 network, which means that there are EU statutory duties to fulfil where that land is concerned.

380. Dr Blakiston-Houston: It is also fair to add that the Forest Service signed up to the Northern Ireland biodiversity strategy. Therefore, we are only asking that the Forest Service meet its obligations through the Bill.

381. Mr Doherty: Thank you for your submission.

382. In many ways, Mr McCrea and the Chairperson asked my question already. Your use of language included terms such as “forestry", “woodland", “tree cover" and “woods". You made a written submission to Forest Service. Did it respond to your query on that use of language? Did the Department respond? Did either of those bodies refer to your use of language in their responses in the consultation?

383. Dr Kirkpatrick: No. We have not had a response on that matter.

384. Mr Doherty: Are you concerned that the loose use of those terminologies may have legal implications?

385. Dr Kirkpatrick: Yes.

386. Mr Doherty: That means that there is an onus on us to try to pin down the legal definition of each of those terms.

387. Dr Kirkpatrick: In this case, the Committee has that expertise at its disposal. We are happy to give our opinion, and we know about woodlands from a scientific point of view. However, a legal perspective is an entirely different matter, and we must make sure that whatever definition we use is capable of standing up in that legal context.

388. Mr W Clarke: Thank you for your presentation.

389. In my opinion, the Bill is not ambitious or visionary enough. This is the first Bill on this subject in over 50 years, and it will probably be a long time before we introduce another. Therefore, it is important to show vision.

390. I will certainly be looking for a number of amendments to the Bill later in the process. I will put some of them to you to see how you feel about them. To me, the use of forestry to combat the negative impact of climate change is paramount and should be at the heart of the Bill. Putting carbon sinks in and around our towns and cities is of paramount importance and should be in the Bill. How do you feel about the use of forestry land for wind farms?

391. The use of that land for production of biomass by using ordinary remnants of forestry land without growing short-rotation coppice willow was also touched on. How would that have an impact on your own land and its biodiversity? Changing a habitat and then managing that was also mentioned. I envisage a good lot of community use and community businesses set up around biomass. You touched on the subjects of hardwood and broadleaf, and you implied that everything can be mastered everything together as long as there is a master plan or a template. Can you address those points?

392. Dr Kirkpatrick: First, you mentioned climate change and the value of having trees around towns. Let me deal first with that. Trees in towns will contribute not only to locking up carbon but to quality of life. Having spent some of my working life in big cities and having been brought up in a very rural area, I know how much pleasure a tree outside an office window gives people. A lot can be delivered by bringing more trees into towns, cities and villages.

393. The climate change issue is important, and it must be considered. It must be considered in a serious, scientific way, with proper quantification, so that you can work out what you are getting.

394. That brings me on to the second point, which was about wind farms. We support wind farms in that they represent renewable technology, and they can also make a contribution. However, a wind farm needs to be in the right place. When installing a wind farm, one needs to ensure that it is not actually releasing more carbon or damaging the environment, but that it is helping.

395. Therefore, complex and complicated decisions need to be made, and good science is required to underpin them.

396. Dr Blakiston-Houston: Woods lock up carbon, but one criticism that can be made is that woods are a living produce; they grow and die and carbon is released after that. That is why I mentioned the possibility of having sustainable management. If that were established, the wood would not be allowed to just fall down, but it would be managed and used in such a way so as to offset carbon or to be carbon neutral. Turning hardwoods into hardwood furniture that will last would, I would say, offset carbon.

397. The use of biomass and single-rotation coppice was raised in the Assembly during the First Stage of the Forestry Bill; I think there was some muddle about whether single-rotation coppice was part of the Forestry Bill. There must be a question in people’s minds as to whether that is an agricultural or a timber crop. However, I do not want to go into much detail on that point.

398. The use of community woodlands and biomass will create a huge opportunity, and funnily enough, if one considers the position of facilities on forestry land, we are slightly moving away from the UWT’s view. In Germany, a lot of community businesses have grown up around the edge of forests. Those businesses have taken wood to use for chipping to support their district heating partnerships. I know that district heating was very unpopular here back in the 1970s, but we did not have the technology to measure heat at that time. That technology now exists.

399. If you are considering cross-linking with other strategies, as you often have to, I would love to see the use of biomass in woods, especially for community district heating. The energy strategy also considers the provision of heat; biomass is the provision of heat more than the provision of energy. Therefore, some opportunities could be looked at. Perhaps you could consider more community facilities than just those that are used for recreation, conservation and education.

400. Mr W Clarke: Do you have any views on the management of forests and the density of planting? I know that the Committee is keen to get more farmers to plant forests, and we think that they should be allowed to graze that land. Do you have any views on habitats, biodiversity and the density of any planting?

401. Dr Kirkpatrick: In many ways, that depends on what you are trying to achieve. The popular perception of woodland is of a very dense tree canopy. However, that is not always necessarily the case. Even in areas of Europe where large areas of woodland remain, there are open areas. Medieval woods were managed heavily, but they had open areas. There would have been hunting in the English medieval woods. Therefore, woods delivered a lot of different functions for the community in the past.

402. To a certain extent, what can be done depends on the type of woodland. For example, some native woodland in Scotland, such as the Caledonian pine wood, is actually very open with a lot of space and light. At the same time, some of the ancient woodlands in Poland, for example, have a much more closed canopy and many more gnarled tree trunks and so on. If you are talking about native woodland, the answer to your question depends on what you are trying to achieve with it and the species that you are using in it. I know that AFBI, for example, has been working on agri-forestry systems, where ash trees are incorporated with sheep grazing underneath. That is actually creating a whole new ecosystem.

403. Mr W Clarke: That is what I am trying to get at. Do you support that?

404. Dr Blakiston-Houston: Yes, very much so.

405. Mr Savage: You touched on two or three issues to which I want to come back, one of which was the Irish hare and the habitat directive. From the forestry end of things, hares can sometimes be a nuisance or pest. At the same time, however, they have been here and people are trying to get the numbers back to what they used to be. Sometimes a hare can be worth as much as the forest end of things.

406. What do you want to achieve, and how are you going to achieve it? Any person considering changing their land to forestry faces a big decision. When people plant, they have a long-term plan and a fair idea of when they will harvest. That is what the whole issue is on the commercial side of things. People have to be very careful about where they plant forests. I know of where one has been planted. As you touched on a minute ago, it is all to do with biomass. It is a lovely area, but people are complaining that their houses are damp because of the biofuels and willows. I know that those will be harvested probably next year or the year after, but what about the native woodland? Grants are now available to encourage farmers to go down that road more than they have done in the past 25 years, as you said.

407. What protection can we give to the rural community in relation to those forests? Will the rights of the people who live in those areas be protected? Will the forests have to be a certain distance from built-up areas? Willie McCrea said that you have been dancing about a wee bit. I know that you have to take a girl to the dance before you dance with her. At the same time, some hard decisions will have to be made in this area. It is very interesting to listen to what you have been saying, but I am really concerned about the long-term future of this issue. What do you think is missing?

408. Dr Kirkpatrick: For a moment there, I thought that I was going to have to —

409. Mr Shannon: Do the foxtrot?

410. Dr Kirkpatrick: Yes. [Laughter.] Either that or my father would have to go for the shotgun.

411. The Chairperson: For Jim Shannon, that would be a good idea.

412. Dr Blakiston-Houston: It is fair to say that the Woodland Trust has done a lot of work in relation to community woodland. Where it has planted community woodland, it is because the community has wanted it, and it has delivered tremendous social and recreational benefits as well as achieving points on climate change, and so on. The whole point about landscape planning and strategic use is working out where forests should be and where they should not be. It is very difficult for us to comment on the specific example that you gave because we do not know anything about it.

413. It is recognised that if hares get up to a huge number, of course they can do damage to new woodland. However, anybody who plans or plants new woodland will be aware of what their hare population is in that area. It is very difficult to legislate for everything. You said that this issue has not been legislated on for 50 years and is well out of time. I think that that says it all: Bills like these will be forever evolving. It is very difficult to have a crystal ball and look in the future.

414. We are looking at increasing the percentage cover of forestry from 6% to 12%, but that has to be done through a strategic plan. It cannot be done using an ad hoc plan that is carried out here and there. It has to be done strategically to make the most of forests and woods so that they can deliver the maximum benefits.

415. Mr Savage: Experts tell me that, when a forest is planted, the better the land on which the trees are planted the quicker the harvest. As far as I am aware, there is a 25-year plan for harvesting. However, in some places, harvests have been achieved in 16 years and, therefore, are ahead of schedule. There must be guidelines for the encouragement of new forests because there are questions around how that will be managed and achieved.

416. Do not get me wrong; I like to see new forests and I like to see them well looked after. However, the big issue is how new forests are going to be perceived by the outside world and the local community. It is better that some use be made of the land than it not be used at all. We are talking about long-term planning; it is only when good ground is planted with trees and harvested that we will know what we are left with. What is your view on that?

417. Dr Kirkpatrick: What we are talking about is thinking strategically about land use; it is about balancing the different functions that the land has to deliver. The land also has to produce food, so there is the classic dilemma that the best places to put trees are sometimes also the best places to grow food. I suppose you are going to accuse me of foxtrotting again, but land use is something that has to be looked at by the devolved Government. It is up to them to decide how to make best use of the land and where the best places for certain things are. That links into planning, and, presumably, the Planning Service would have a function in relation to where community woodlands would be developed, if that was a route that you went down. Part of the reason why we have so many forests in the uplands is that that was where the Forest Service, and the Forestry Commission across the water, have been able to acquire land.

418. Mr Savage: Is that where forests should be?

419. Dr Kirkpatrick: No, the uplands are probably not the best place to put forests because it takes a long time for trees to grow there and to produce commercial timber. Also, because we are in an oceanic climate, there is a lot of wind. The windthrow hazard maps that have been produced show that an entire crop could be taken down by a particularly bad storm. The Forest Service, the Forestry Commission and Coillte have such maps, and they use those maps to plan where they plant and what spacing is required.

420. If you want to get a good return on forestry, you have to bring forests down the hill. However, as members of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, you will know that the land at the bottom of the hill is land that could be used for food production and, potentially, land on which you need to have houses, towns and infrastructure. It comes back to the point that was made earlier about the need to take a strategic look at the green infrastructure and the built infrastructure and at what that is delivering.

421. Dr Blakiston-Houston: The UWT has done a lot of work on landscape-scale projects and, if members are interested, we will be very happy to send some of that work to the Committee. That work raises the sort of questions that we are trying to ask on a landscape scale. We have a problem with land capacity. That is not just a problem for the Committee; the whole of government has to look at what people want from the land and what its capacity is. The UWT has tried to look at those issues through landscape-scale projects.

422. Mr Savage: That is long-term planning.

423. Dr Blakiston-Houston: It is, but so is forestry. It is part of the whole examination of the strategic use of land.

424. Dr Kirkpatrick: That is why the use of land is, to some extent, the business of public policy and of government. The issue is not just about what is happening now, it is also about what will happen in the future and taking decisions on behalf of future generations.

425. Mr Elliott: Thank you for your presentation; I apologise for missing most of it. I also apologise if I raise issues that you have covered.

426. I want to ask about the destruction of what the Bill terms “wild animals". I know that you have specifically referred to deer and the Irish hare. Chairperson, we may need to clarify the Department’s position on the Irish hare.

427. The Chairperson: We have got some good news on that. The Department has indicated that it will put in extra protections for the Irish hare.

428. Mr Elliott: My apologies; I was not aware of that.

429. If the Irish hare is protected, are you reasonably content with the rest of the part of the legislation that allows the destruction of “wild animals"? Or, even if the Irish hare is protected, are you concerned that there may still be other animals that require protection?

430. Mr Savage: We have to be very careful about the hare.

431. Dr Blakiston-Houston: An overseeing body is required so that the Forest Service is not solely in charge. There is a power for them to go onto other people’s land, so there should be some form of independent scrutiny. We have asked for a statutory duty in the Bill to conform to the biodiversity strategy. As a wildlife organisation, we would be content if that statutory duty was carried out, because it would mean that there would have to be monitoring to assess the impact of some of the actions. There should be a clause to ensure that harm is not caused.

432. Mr Elliott: Are you saying that the issue is giving the Forest Service too much power without any oversight?

433. Dr Kirkpatrick: It is about checks and balances and making sure that the processes that the Forest Service and private landowners who operate forestry go through fit in with statutory obligations under things like the habitats directive and the birds directive. Those checks and balances exist in other areas, so it is the Committee’s role to ensure that the checks and balances that allow independent decisions to be made are in the legislation. That will give the public confidence that the democratic process is working properly.

434. Mr Elliott: That could be said for large sections of the Bill.

435. You have broadly welcomed public access to forestry land and said that providing places for people to walk and places for wildlife to live will improve the landscape of the countryside. Are you concerned that increased public access will increase the chances of parts of forestry land being destroyed? If much wider public access is granted to forestry land, particularly if it is not reasonably controlled, there will always be a concern about more damage.

436. Dr Kirkpatrick: Public access for any organisation inevitably brings challenges. It brings challenges for us as an organisation that manages nature reserves, yet we actively welcome people on to our land. There is a paradox, in that if you have lots of people using forestry land, it acts as a deterrent against antisocial behaviour, because the opportunities for people to behave badly are checked to an extent due to the presence of a significant proportion of the population who use the land as a resource.

437. The same principle can be applied to urban nature reserves, for example, where antisocial behaviour can occur. In fact, the best way to reduce that is to have houses with kitchen windows that face onto the reserve, and people stand at those windows while they wash dishes. Those people’s kids use the reserve and go to groups there. If they see people hanging around, they will report them. They will report vandalism.

438. The vast majority of the general public are decent, law-abiding people who want to go out and enjoy the countryside. If many people use a facility and go out walking there, they will act as a deterrent to others who would be involved in antisocial behaviour. Some of that behaviour might happen anyway: if people are going to be destructive on Forest Service property, they will probably not care too much about whether they have a right of access to it.

439. Dr Blakiston-Houston: It is fair to say that Northern Ireland is always trying to encourage rural tourism. Tourists here have far less access to open countryside, whether that is forestry or another environment, to walk across than in any other part of the United Kingdom. If we can encourage public access around forest parks, that will only be good for the tourist industry, which is important, especially for the rural economy.

440. Mr Elliott: I appreciate that. I declare an interest as a member of Fermanagh District Council. We work closely with Forest Service to develop open access to several areas of forestry land. I understand the challenges that that brings, particularly because providing greater public access does not always mean that more of the public will avail themselves of it. However, it can open up opportunities for antisocial behaviour for some people.

441. Also, more public access means more upkeep. There needs to be a commitment to continual and regular financial input. I am conscious that there has to be balance: we cannot simply open up all Forest Service land. We must be able to control the land that is opened up to public access. I hope that you agree.

442. Dr Blakiston-Houston: I am afraid that I do not consider that to be innovative enough. The case should need to be made to stop public access, rather than for it. It would be good to have a general facility for public access, and if there are areas where you do not want it, you should make the case against it then. That should be the same for reserves: if you do not want people to go onto a certain area, the case for why people should not access that area would have to be made for conservation reasons. Therefore, the presumption should be for public access.

443. Mr Elliott: In fairness, I have to say that my experience on Fermanagh District Council, where we do that as widely as possible, is that when all land is opened up for access, there is little control. If land can be opened up enough to give the public sufficient access, but still be manageable and controllable, is that not a much better option? When all land is opened up, and people are walking through forests that do not have proper pathways, it opens up all sorts of insurance claims.

444. Dr Blakiston-Houston: The Bill does talk about minimising Forest Service’s public liability. You should look at that. Off the top of my head, an idea would be to look at forest partnerships that have been set up with local communities. Perhaps, when a community asks for public access, a forest partnership should be considered. The presumption should be access in that case. You would know whether there was a need for public access. I have forgotten which forest partnerships are run by Forest Service. I sit on the Gortin forest partnership.

445. Dr Kirkpatrick: It would be worthwhile for the Committee to look at public-access situations and how some of those issues have been handled elsewhere. People have raised those issues. When the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 was going through the Scottish Parliament, some of those issues were raised, such as what happens when people are able to wander into places where they have not been before and the consequences of that. Looking at how public access to land has been dealt with and what its consequences and management implications have been elsewhere may provide useful lessons.

446. The Chairperson: Thank you both for coming and for giving us so much of your time and, indeed, expertise on this subject. We will be taking evidence throughout January and, eventually, we will produce a report on the Bill.

447. Mr Shannon: If you need a dance partner, George is available. [Laughter.]

1 December 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Pat Doherty
Mr William Irwin
Dr William McCrea
Mr George Savage
Mr Jim Shannon

Witnesses:

Dr Kathleen McKenna
Mr Willie McKenna

Farm Woodlands Ltd

448. The Chairperson (Mr Paisley Jnr): The next presentation is from representatives of Farm Woodlands Ltd. I welcome Mr Willie McKenna and Dr Kathleen McKenna.

449. Mr Willie McKenna (Farm Woodlands Ltd): I apologise on behalf of Cathal Woods, who has gone down with swine flu. I found the previous contribution interesting. Farm Woodlands Ltd is a private forestry company that was established in 1992 and it does quite a bit of work under the woodland grant scheme (WGS), the countryside management scheme, public works, etc. We have an interest in woodchip, as opposed to willow chip. We were one of the consultees on the Forestry Bill.

450. The Forestry Bill proposes to double the area of woodland by 2050. From our experience, Forest Service’s track record on woodland expansion and moving forward has not been encouraging. Is Forest Service the body that should be steering us towards the goal of doubling the area of woodland by 2050? I have serious reservations about that. I will give you three examples from Forest Service’s material to backup my point. I apologise for having to hand it out this morning. We were working on the basis that we would be using overheads, but we discovered on Friday that PowerPoint was not available in Belfast, which surprised me as we have it in Augher.

451. Mr Shannon: You should have brought it with you. [Laughter.]

452. The Chairperson: Plenty of power but no point. [Laughter.]

453. Mr W McKenna: Many of the things that come from the Forest Service appear to be a disincentive to plant woodland on private land. I refer the Committee to page B1 —

454. The Chairperson: Does this relate to fees?

455. Mr W McKenna: It is a copy of a recent approval, dated 27 October 2009, which came through to us for one of our clients. It highlights that:

“FWPS payments to non-farmers (i.e. those who obtain less than 25% of their income from farming) of 150 euro per hectare (about £100)."

456. On seeing that, people immediately ask when €150 became equivalent to £100. It is calculated on the basis of the euro being equal to 66p. On our way here this morning, we heard that the euro was equivalent to 91p. If it was calculated at 80p, the figure would go up to €120; and a calculation at 90p would increase the euro value to €135. Landowners do not get a positive vibe from their approval letter; they feel that they are being short-changed.

457. A couple of members asked whether the economic incentives were good enough. I have just given an example of a disincentive. Landowners feel that they are being penalised. The answer is simple. Every year, the single farm payment is calculated according to September’s euro value. It should not be beyond the realms of the calculations of the computer program to sort that out simply.

458. The Chairperson: You would be surprised.

459. Mr W McKenna: Every landowner gets single farm payment in one shape or form, but not every landowner is claiming forestry premiums, so it is a smaller-scale operation. Try explaining the logic behind why the calculation is based on an exchange rate of 66p. It does not stand up.

460. Page C1 relates to the farm woodland premium scheme. Paragraph 1 states that:

“The Farm Woodland Premium Scheme (FWPS), is designed to encourage the creation of new woodlands and farms and agricultural land. It was first introduced in 1992 as successor to the Farm Woodland Scheme and has undergone a number of revisions since."

461. Paragraph 5 relates to the review of rates of payment. It states that:

“Rates of annual payment will be reviewed at least every five years."

462. That is fairly straightforward. It continues:

“The reviews will take account of relevant factors including trends in income from comparable agricultural land. The rates of annual payment could therefore go down as well as up in certain circumstances."

463. The farm woodland premium scheme was established in 1992, and we set up as a company in 1992. Therefore, I have lived with the current farm woodland premium scheme. I know what I am talking about, in this case. I knew that Forest Service had not fulfilled its obligation to review the rates of annual payment at least every five years. Page C2 is a letter that I sent to Joe Bradley in the Forest Service on 9 February 2009. In that letter, I asked him to confirm the dates and outcomes of the reviews that had taken place since 1992. That was a fairly straightforward question. Page C3 is a letter dated 26 June 2009, which I wrote to Councillor Tom Elliott MLA, who is our local MLA.

464. The Chairperson: Is he any good? [Laughter.]

465. Dr Kathleen McKenna (Farm Woodlands Ltd): Yes. [Laughter.]

466. Mr W McKenna: I was getting nowhere with my straightforward request to the Forest Service. The letter that I sent to Tom Elliott was self-explanatory. I asked him whether he could get any more joy than I could out of the Forest Service. Lo and behold, we received a reply two weeks later, on 9 July. Pages C4 and C5 show the reply, which confirms what I knew before I asked the question. The response informed me that the farm woodland premium scheme was introduced on 1 April 1992 and reviewed in April 1997. I have no problem with that, because it was reviewed within the five-year period. It was reviewed again in January 2000, which was three years later. The commitment was to review at least every five years, so everything up until that point was fine. However, no reviews took place from January 2000 to January 2007. To really rub salt into the wound, the review in January 2007 excluded anyone who had planted prior to 2007. Five years had passed without a review, after which they hit the pioneers with a whammy. Not only did Forest Service break the terms of its contract, it excluded people who had previously planted woodland. That was nowhere in the contract that the landowner signed up to. Talk about a negative impression.

467. The Committee is, perhaps, not the right forum to raise the matter, but I will throw it into the equation anyhow. A client of ours who is a solicitor planted his woodland in 1995. He is keen to test his case in court. I told him to hold on until the new year. It does not make a difference whether he does that now or waits for a year, because a review is taking place and, perhaps, the backlog and outstanding issues will be addressed. I gave him that advice because I have a vested interest in it. If the case goes ahead, it will be — win, lose or draw — a total PR disaster for everybody in the system. I have an interest in trying to resolve that issue. That is a second example of a landowner who has kept to his end of the contract while the Forest Service has not.

468. Page D1 of the submission shows figures for woodland expansion in Northern Ireland for the period from 2000 to 2009. The figures are from the Forest Service’s annual report. The left column shows the years from 2000 to 2009, and the next column shows the Forest Service’s new planting targets in hectares. In 2000, the target was 800 hectares. However, by 2006, the target had dropped by 50%. The next column shows the actual area of planting compared with the target, and the right column shows whether the ministerial target was achieved. The Forest Service reduced its target for the amount of private woodland that is planted. Even in those circumstances, it achieved the ministerial target only in three of the past 10 years. Although it halved the target —

469. The Chairperson: It still could not achieve it.

470. Mr W McKenna: Rather than examine why the target was not achieved, Forest Service reduced the target to enable it to tick the boxes. At that stage, one would have thought that it was time to review why the target was not being achieved rather than to reduce it. Forest Service basically massaged the figures. As outlined on page D2, from 2006 onwards, Forest Service added the area of willow planted to its figures. Willow is not woodland; it is as simple as that. There is no argument about it.

471. The Chairperson: Is it subject to the same grant aid and assistance?

472. Mr W McKenna: It is subject to grant aid from a different funding source. Willow is not woodland.

473. The Chairperson: Is it funded at a different level?

474. Mr W McKenna: Yes. Willow is short rotation coppice. One is funded by the woodland grant scheme and the other is funded by the short rotation coppice scheme. When willow is added to the figures for 2006 onwards, the picture is changed. It means that the ministerial target was achieved in three of the past four years, and it ticks the box. In 2009, even when the amount of willow is added, which is 64 hectares on top of the 225 hectares of woodland, the target was not achieved. The fudge ran out because there was not enough between the two to tick the box and say that the target had been achieved. It was at that stage that stakeholders were called in. I was one of the people involved in the stakeholders’ meeting on 9 June 2009, and we had quite a bit of this discussion with the Forest Service. Our contribution was that, unless there is an open and honest assessment over how achieving that target has been handled over the past 10 years, we are not going to make much progress in trying to expand the area.

475. The grant rates have stayed almost static for the past 10 years. Nothing else has stayed static, so where is the incentive for a landowner? If we are going to get anywhere near the target for 2050, the majority of the new woodland that will be planted has got to come from the private sector. There is no argument about that. It will need to be planted at the rate of between 1,500 to 2,000 hectares a year. The figure depends on who you are talking to, because we are not sure how much woodland we have. We do not have a private woodland inventory. It is difficult to manage something if you do not know how much of it you have got to start with. A private woodland inventory would be a useful starting point.

476. Irrespective of the inventory, to meet that target will require planting between 1,500 and 2,000 hectares a year. A table in the documents that we have provided to the Committee shows that there was a new planting target of 800 hectares in 2000. New woodland planted this year totals 225 hectares. If we were still holding around 800 hectares, to achieve the target by 2050 would mean doubling the area each year. Given that it has been allowed to slip, that would mean multiplying it by about six times the current rate, which is a major task. In light of the history of the past 10 years, is the Forest Service the best organisation to be trying to lead us to that target?

477. You asked whether there is enough financial incentive —

478. The Chairperson: I think that the answer is pretty clear from what you are saying.

479. Mr W McKenna: The answer is no. A review of the woodland grant schemes was announced last week. There are two parts to the woodland grant schemes: an establishment grant and an annual payment. The establishment grant is eaten up by the cost of planting and caring for the woodland for five years. We refer to the annual payment in broad terms, as it is usually farmers that we speak to, as grass money. It is compensation for loss of grazing or loss of letting on the land that was planted with the woodland grant money, because you cannot graze on it or sell it.

480. Some of the people who planted early were excluded from the 2007 review of rates. That scheme was reviewed and the result announced last week. I was surprised that it did not make the newspapers on Saturday as a headline grabber, because it was announced that the grass money rates increased by up to 50%. That is what the press release states, but when you read it closely, it states that the increase is indeed 50%, and that the payment has increased from £60 a hectare to £90 a hectare. That is a £30 increase, which is 50%. However, that is in one category only. That category is classed as disadvantaged unimproved land. We did not plant one hectare of that last year. It would be interesting if a member of the Committee asked how many hectares of it were planted last year.

481. The Chairperson: We can ask that question.

482. Mr W McKenna: I am not aware that any hectares were planted last year. The 50% increase is limited to a very small category of people. However, the 50% increase has already created an impression, especially among those who have already planted and who know the system and have read the articles. The 50% increase has caught the imagination of those people. Taking the increase over the other five categories, it decreases from 50% to an average of 11·3%.

483. A farmer may have a notion in his head that two years ago when he planted he was getting £90 an acre — we will work in acres as there are some older men here — grass money. That farmer is thinking of planting additional woodland and rings me up. However, when I go out to him he suddenly discovers that instead of a 50% increase to £135 an acre, he will receive only £96 an acre. Therefore, instead of encouraging people, it will discourage them, because they have been given the wrong impression to start with.

484. The Chairperson: You sound scunnered. Is that a fair reflection of your presentation?

485. Dr K McKenna: We reflect the views of the landowners, who are the people at the coalface. Someone mentioned earlier the reaction of landowners. We deal with landowners day in and day out, and we are reflecting their opinions to the Committee.

486. The Chairperson: For a big landowner who is getting out of farming, it might be quite easy to do a wee bit of planting as a hobby. However, for a serious farmer who wants to make a living, the current arrangements are no incentive whatsoever. Is that a fair characterisation of what you are saying?

487. Mr W McKenna: Yes, it is.

488. Dr K McKenna: Yes. You mentioned the people who are thinking of retiring or scaling down. That is where the issue of non-farmers arises. We have not spoken about that until now, but those people are being caught out by the non-farmer category. There are very few non-farmers in Northern Ireland, but there are a lot of part-time farmers. Has Forest Service been categorising people incorrectly? For us, a non-farmer could be a factory that has surplus land or someone who is not actively farming his or her land. Most people are part-time farmers, and, despite being a huge group, they are being totally disincentivised by being designated as non-farmers. Until that is sorted out, you will not be able to increase the rates of private planting.

489. The Chairperson: We can go back to the Department on that point.

490. In your presentation, you made the point powerfully that Forest Service does not appear to be the best organisation to lead on the matter. If so, who should be given responsibility in the Bill?

491. Mr W McKenna: In answer to whether Forest Service is the best organisation to take the lead, I put forward its performance in the past 10 years. From those figures, Forest Service would have gone to the wall if had been a private organisation.

492. The Chairperson: Absolutely; it would have been “goodnight, Vienna". Who should be taking the lead, and how should that be reflected in the Bill?

493. Mr W McKenna: I flagged up the problem, but the solution might not be as straightforward. An aspiration to double the area by 2050 is not strong enough; the goal needs to be written down in legislation. Willie McCrea talked about substance, and you can have all the aspirations that you want, but unless there is a penalty for not achieving targets, they will always remain targets and aspirations.

494. The Chairperson: You are saying that the Bill should specify the exact number of hectares that should become forest land over a certain period.

495. Mr W McKenna: Yes; that has to be done if you want to reach the 12% target by 2050. Over the past 10 years, our graph has been dropping instead of expanding. A major shake up is needed to reverse that trend.

496. Dr K McKenna: The targets need a shake up. I do not like to use the word “penalty", but what system is in place if, for example, Forest Service agrees that it has not met its targets? Who is the service answerable to if it does not meet its targets? At the stakeholders’ meeting, we talked about how the newly reviewed grants to landowners need to be substantial. The results of the review have been published, but they contain only token increases. Instead of an all-encompassing grant system, we have ended up with a two-tier system that penalises pioneers in the area. The system is a mess. To who is Forest Service answerable? It does not reflect the views of landowners, stakeholders or the Committee.

497. Mr Elliott: You are both very welcome, and I thank you for your presentation. Legislating for a 50-year target would probably mean the compulsory taking land off farmers. That would be the only way round it. If we legislate to double forest cover in 50 years, but the Forest Service does not have the land on which to achieve that target, the only way to do it would be to compulsorily take land from farmers. I flag up that information because, when farmers hear about such a possibility, you may not be very popular with some of them, especially if they do not get a reasonable return.

498. The Chairperson: Given that what you just said has been recorded by Hansard, you will probably not be popular with the Department either.

499. Dr K McKenna: That is the point; it must be popular with landowners.

500. Mr W McKenna: Tom, why is the countryside management scheme oversubscribed? Both schemes are being run by the same Department. It is because it is financially attractive. If the farm woodland premium scheme were to be made attractive, it too would become oversubscribed.

501. Mr Elliott: To be fair, the difference is that the countryside management scheme allows farmers to continue with conventional farming activities, such as producing suckler cows, dairy cows and sheep. When you get into woodland, the land is out of conventional farm production for at least a generation. That is the difference.

502. Mr W McKenna: Yes, but if a stranger asks me what I work at, and I say that I am a farmer in the forestry business, what does that mean? The flippant answer is that we plant woodlands for fed-up farmers. A fed-up farmer might be 50 years old and want to cut down so, instead of keeping 20 cows, he keeps 10 and plants woodland on his surplus land. Alternatively, we plant and manage woodland for a number of people who own land but do not even live in this country. They might live in England or New York, but their uncle has left them a farm. In this country, the nature of land ownership means that, traditionally, there is great reluctance to sell land has been left to someone. Such a person may have let his land to an experienced neighbour, who paid for the conacre on time. However, over the last three wet summers, land belonging to quite a few of those sorts of people was abused and badly tramped.

503. The Chairperson: To look at things from a slightly different angle, at what level would the incentive need to be set to make it attractive for people to apply, so that would we would not have to go down the compulsory land take route?

504. Mr W McKenna: The establishment grant to which you referred, which went up from £1,850 to £2,400 per hectare, is adequate. I have no problem with it.

505. The Chairperson: Really; is that a one-off payment of £2,400 per hectare, or is it paid every year?

506. Mr W McKenna: It is a grant to plant and look after trees for five years. Ten years ago, the rate was £1,800 per hectare, but it has gone up to £2,400 per hectare, which is adequate. Basically, that is used up to plant and look after the woodland.

507. The second payment is the farm woodland premium scheme, which is paid annually. At that stakeholders’ meeting, I put forward the notion that the rate should be doubled. I suggested that all of the stakeholders should be called back in two or three years to look at the areas that are planted and to see the impact that doubling the annual payment would have on the incentive to plant.

508. When I read the article last week, I thought that it was not bad because the Forest Service was going to increase the rate by 50%. I thought that it had taken on board some of what I had said, and that the rate would have been only 50% short of what I was talking about. However, when I read the article in more detail, I found out that that was not the case; the rate will be increased by 50% in only one category. That will have no impact.

509. Mr Elliott: I was only making the clear point that it may mean compulsory purchasing or acquisition. To be fair, Willie, the example that you gave of somebody living in America who wants their land planted is slightly different to a farmer who is still here, has a part-time job and keeps 30 or 40 cattle.

510. I want to ask a question about the issue of Forest Service having much more control. Obviously, you are in the private forestry business. A number of organisations have said to the Committee and to me that the Bill gives unfair competitive advantage to the Forest Service, as opposed to the private developer. I am thinking of a couple of issues in particular, such as compulsory acquisition, which allows the Forest Service to take land if it so wishes. There is also the fact that Forest Service does not need a felling licence, but the individual does. What is your assessment of those issues?

511. Mr W McKenna: When I first read the Bill, I thought that many aspects of it adopted an attitude of “do as we say, not as we do". In other words, the Forest Service took powers for itself and insisted on regulations for everybody else. To be honest, and I hope that I am still right, a number of clauses in the Bill were included as flyers to possibly be dropped out, so that it would look as though there was a change. For example, the issue of —

512. Mr Elliott: You are deeply suspicious, Willie.

513. Mr W McKenna: An example of such an issue is that of clearing a fire break around Forest Service property on private land. If I want to clear a fire break around my property, I will do that on my land. Another issue was controlling deer on private land that could have come from the forest to start with. Forest Service would charge the landowner for controlling the deer; it would send an authorised person, and we would be sent the bill.

514. Dr K McKenna: That seems bizarre. There is no need for it.

515. Mr Elliott: I assume that you are opposed to the unfair advantage that Forest Service has.

516. Dr K McKenna: Yes.

517. Mr W McKenna: I demonstrated how, in the past 10 years, it did not seem to be very farmer-friendly in respect of private woodlands. I do not see why, if it is given a fairly broad brush in respect of extra powers, they would be applied in a different manner.

518. The Chairperson: Therefore, you believe that felling licences should also apply to Forest Service, but you would prefer that there were no felling licence fees?

519. Dr K McKenna: Yes.

520. The Chairperson: Apart from the cost issue, why are you opposed to management plans? Is a management plan not a sensible way to plan for the future? Your submission states that you disagree with the requirement for a management plan for private forestry. Why is that?

521. Dr K McKenna: We felt that there were already enough legislative bodies in place to manage that issue further down the line. That is not really the role of the Forest Service.

522. Mr Irwin: Thank you very much for your presentation. I am a farmer, and I can understand fully where you are coming from. As I have said in the past, I cannot remotely see how the area of forest in Northern Ireland will be doubled unless there is a big increase in the incentive to do so. Even if a farmer has a piece of wasteland, there would have to be a big enough incentive to plant trees.

523. As you say, the grant of £2,400 a hectare to encourage the establishment of more woodland is OK, initially. However, the figures for woodland expansion from 2000 to 2009 show that the Forest Service’s target for last year was only 450 hectares, and yet it achieved just over half of that. That has been the case for the past couple of years, and the target has been reduced by almost half. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind — I am sure anyone sitting on the Committee who knows anything about farming thinks the same — that there is no chance of doubling the amount of woodland, unless there is a big change.

524. Mr Savage: Mr McKenna, you said that, 10 years ago, farmers received £800 an acre for planting trees for five years.

525. Mr W McKenna: No, that is not right. It is a bit confusing until you see it in black and white. There are two separate grants for one piece of land. One of them is a woodland establishment grant, which we refer to as a “tree grant" in the literature that we send out to anybody who enquires about it. That grant is for farmers who plant tress and look after them for five years until they are established. Running parallel with that from year one is an annual payment called the farm woodland premium scheme, which we refer to as “grass money" to distinguish between the two. One grant is for grass, and one is for trees. The farm woodland premium scheme is paid annually, usually in the November after planting.

526. For example, if you planted land in February, you would get an annual payment in November. If you planted conifers, you would receive that payment for 10 years, and if you planted broadleaves you would get it for 15 years. People who planted before the 2007 review of the grass money rate — say in 1995 or even in 2006 — were excluded from that. That was not in their initial contract.

527. Dr K McKenna: The buzzword used to describe people who had planted prior to 2007 is “archived". The Forest Service knew that there was going to be a difference in payments when the scheme was reviewed in 2007. However, it did not flag that up with us, its own inspectors, or any other body. As Willie said, the people who planted broadleaves in 2006 were looking forward to their 15 annual payments that they and everybody else assumed would be reviewed every five years, because that is what the literature stated. Suddenly, one year later, they were out of the loop.

528. The Chairperson: That is sharp practice.

529. Dr K McKenna: It was just crazy. The issue of the two-tier system can be solved under the review that was announced last week by bringing everyone up the same rate and by letting the people who had planted prior to 2007 have their contracts run to their natural end.

530. The Chairperson: The Forest Service has lost the hearts and minds of a whole group of people.

531. Dr K McKenna: I agree entirely. Those people are so disenchanted about that has happened that they will not plant again. They have told us that.

532. Mr W McKenna: They are also telling their neighbours about their experience.

533. Dr K McKenna: It was a PR disaster.

534. Mr W McKenna: The process has gone slightly out of shape.

535. Mr Savage: Those people feel sick at the moment, and that is understandable.

536. Dr K McKenna: They do, because it came out of blue. Going back to my earlier point, why did the Forest Service take it upon itself to do that without consulting with or telling anybody? It appears to have been an in-house decision.

537. The Chairperson: We will raise those issues with the Forest Service when they give evidence to the Committee.

538. Mr Burns: I wish to return to Willie’s point about the small-time farmer who has a wee bit of land that he has rented out but with which he is dissatisfied, so he considers planting on it. He is a small person in the great scheme of things.

539. In Scotland, and other places, it is big insurance corporations that buy and rent land, often for around 40 years. There is not, as is traditional in Northern Ireland, the issue of conacre, whereby somebody rents the land for each season. In the case of conacre, farmers decide what they want to plant and that therefore they will rent the land for 25 years, with the intention, for example, of planting trees. From the start, a farmer would know what grant they would get and, hopefully, what they would receive at the end of that term. Having worked out the figures, a farmer would go into that on a firmly commercial basis. However, the people going into forestry who are small within the system are taking a chance, and, quite frankly, the odds are not in their favour. Those people have made a decision whether or not to go for it. At least, that is how it seems to me.

540. I do not know anything about forestry or planting trees, but I certainly would not be jumping at it. When the bigger people in the system go for it — those with money, the smaller people in the system can feel that they know more and therefore can jump in along with them and plant trees. However, if people cannot see the bigger scheme, they will only be chancing their arm on something that, I believe, they do not understand or know enough about.

541. Mr W McKenna: In the literature that we sent out, the headline is: “Don’t jump into forestry". We make people keenly aware that they should take their time and study the issues, because there are a lot of pitfalls. The last paragraph in our literature explains that, in most cases, the person who plants the woodland will not be around to harvest it. The only thing that someone going into forestry can be sure of is that they will get an annual payment, grass money, for 15 years. If they are happy enough with that rate of payment, forestry is worth considering.

542. However, we will now have to change that literature. In the past, the rate of payment was guaranteed for 15 years; now it is not. People are not even guaranteed that. If someone is not happy with the rate of annual payment, why would they consider planting trees?

543. Mr Burns: Could somebody plant trees, knowing that they are never going to see a harvest in their lifetime, and then sell the land before it was ready for harvesting?

544. Mr W McKenna: They could.

545. Mr Burns: How does that work when it comes to grants?

546. Mr W McKenna: Given the long-term nature of forestry, woodland changes hands more regularly than normal grassland. A change of ownership usually takes the form of retirement, death or sale. Given the long-term nature of forestry, the Department of Agriculture provides a change-of-ownership form that changes the assets of the forest from a previous owner to a new one. During the lifetime of the trees, woodland will change hands more often than is normal for other agricultural land. That is why there is a change-of-ownership form. The new owner will be entitled to whatever benefits are still outstanding on that piece of woodland.

547. The Chairperson: I thank Mr McKenna and Dr McKenna for their candour. The presentation has been very useful because you have been most straightforward with us. We meet a lot of people who dance around the issues, and we appreciate your being so blunt.

1 December 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Pat Doherty
Mr William Irwin
Dr William McCrea
Mr George Savage
Mr Jim Shannon

Witnesses:

Mr Peter Archdale
Mr Patrick Casement

Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside

548. The Chairperson (Mr Paisley Jnr): I welcome Patrick Casement and Peter Archdale from the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside (CNCC). They will make an oral presentation on the Forestry Bill. The Committee is sorry for delaying you, but other items of businesses that are being discussed at other Committees held up some members. You may begin with a short presentation. We have seen the document that you forwarded to Grainne Davis at the Department. Perhaps you will speak on that document, but you do not have to read it to us.

549. Mr Patrick Casement (Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside): Thank you for the invitation to the Committee and for the opportunity to say a few words. The CNCC was set up in 1989, following the publication of the Balfour report, which looked into the delivery of nature conservation in Northern Ireland, in light of what was happening across the water where separate agencies were set up in different countries. Scottish Natural Heritage, English Nature and Countryside Council for Wales were independent bodies, and Jean Balfour looked at whether a similar body should be set up here.

550. She concluded that such a body should not be set up here and that nature conservation and countryside matters should remain within the Department of the Environment in what was then the Environment Service. As a form of scrutiny, however, she recommended that the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside be set up to provide independent scrutiny and advice to the Department on matters around nature, conservation and the countryside. That was an amalgamation of two existing committees — the Committee for Nature Conservation and the Ulster Countryside Committee. The CNCC is one of three statutory advisory councils to the Department of the Environment. The others are the Historic Monuments Council and the Historic Buildings Council.

551. The CNCC has a chairman and a deputy chairman who are paid, and up to 18 other members from a wide background who share a strong interest in our natural heritage. Current membership includes university professors, geologists, three people who work for non-governmental organisations (NGOs), retired civil servants, schoolteachers, environmental consultants, farmers, and engineers. There is a wide range of people who come from different viewpoints but who have a strong love of the national heritage. We do not always have a focused or narrow view of anything that we are looking at; we tend to take a fairly broad view, because we come from a broad range of backgrounds. In a sense, our response reflects that.

552. I was fairly new to the post when the response was produced, and Peter Archdale, the deputy chairman, was not in post. Since the response, the council has had a fairly major turnover. It was reconstituted in February. Therefore, several other points have come to light; we will touch on those during the session.

553. The Chairperson: Has the turnover in council membership affected the balance that you outlined?

554. Mr Casement: Perhaps slightly. For example, it has probably increased the interest in public access to the countryside. There is less specific interest in woodland, per se. Having said that, most people still have a strong interest in forestry and woodland. However, their knowledge is less specialised. I do not think that it has affected the views; it may have affected the light in which people look at certain things. Further scrutiny of the Bill has uncovered one or two additional points.

555. The main points remain absolutely clear: we feel that commercial production, environmental benefit and community benefit should have equal importance in the Bill. It is too heavily weighted towards commercial production. We are absolutely clear about the importance of the Forest Service’s land for recreational and educational purposes in the absence of a public footpath network and for public health benefits. We are absolutely clear about the need for sustainable forests such as continuous cover forestry, which provides biodiversity and water quality benefits and improves flood protection and carbon retention. We are clear about the need for forest protection and forest expansion.

556. Mr Peter Archdale (Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside): I will summarise the views that have emerged since we submitted the consultation letter. The Bill is not ambitious enough. It lacks vision and the broad recognition that forestry provides far more than commercial production. To a certain extent, that is evidenced by the value of the timber, in monetary terms, that comes from our forests. Frankly, the Forest Service runs at a loss. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, arguments in favour of more of the same do not really wash.

557. Over the past couple of years, there has been a greater awareness of ecosystem services. As Patrick mentioned, that is the broad recognition of all the advantages and services that are provided by an ecosystem. That does not apply to forests only; it is in the water framework directive and applies to whole catchment areas and all the things that are happening therein. The role of forests to service the environment is huge. For example, forests clean water and contribute to water quality. There are examples in England where water from forests needs virtually no treatment and, therefore, saves money. The need to recognise all the other benefits is missing from the Bill. That is not particular to the forestry element, but it is a good starting point.

558. Frankly, the Bill, as it is couched at the moment, gives too much power to the Forest Service. Some aspects of it say that the Forest Service is the appropriate body to judge outcomes. Where the outcome is commercial forestry, I would argue that it is not taking all the factors into account.

559. Another example of that is the issue of felling licensing. It is difficult to understand why that applies to only the public authority sector, given that the Department and, indeed, other Departments are exempt. We have noted that issue in the council, and there seems to be quite a level of detail about how RPA will impact on some of the really basic services that councils provide once it is implemented. As the Bill stands, any council has the power to fell trees without the requirement for a licence. However, the question is: where are they going to get the expertise to make that judgement? They could go back to Forest Service, but that would make the system very cumbersome, which takes us back to the point about whether commercial forestry is driving the decision-making process.

560. The Chairperson: If commercial forestry were successful, would you be more sympathetic to the Bill? You make a strong point about the fact that commercial forestry runs at a loss and yet it is our drive and motivation.

561. Mr Archdale: That question has two distinct parts, one of which is about [Inaudible.] It is fair to consider the issue as purely financial; and, in straightened times, it probably should be considered as such. However, one is not comparing like with like, which is the broader issue. One of the reasons why commercial forestry is not operating at a profit is because the quality of the timber we produce does not fit all the requirements of this country. I accept that we use some of our own timber and that we use some for biomass, but we also import vast amounts, which takes me to my next point.

562. In part, the Forestry Bill is an expression of the way in which we want to manage forestry, but it does not cover all elements. In September, during a field trip to Wales, we met an organisation there called Coed Cymru, which looks at the gamut of forest services, from organisations that plant trees to those that want to produce and market charcoal, wicker fences, biomass products and hardwoods for furniture. Northern Ireland does not have that. It has only a market for softwood, which is used for either biomass or posts and building materials. There is a need for a facilitating organisation such as the one in Wales to incentivise other areas to produce different forms of wood products. You will be aware that Forest Service’s present target is 550 hectares per annum. Last year, it managed 289 hectares, all of which were planted by private landowners. The Forest Service did not plant any new trees last year; it only replanted.

563. The Chairperson: Has the council identified any ways of incentivising the marketplace?

564. Mr Archdale: In fairness to Forest Service, it noted that issue in last year’s report. Consequently, it put together an advisory group comprising conservationists, producers and some government representatives. Forest Service’s recent announcement that it will increase the woodland grant scheme rates has been seen as addressing one of the problems. However, there are intrinsic difficulties in Northern Ireland.

565. The Chairperson: That new grant will now pay £2,400 a hectare for broad leaved woodland and £1,600 a hectare for conifer woodland. Do you think that that is a strong enough incentive?

566. Mr Archdale: I cannot answer yes or no, because I have not tested the water with anybody. In my case, which is probably a good example, I have about 40 hectares of land, of which about one third is woodland, and I would like to increase that. However, the associated problem, which is what every farmer is dealing with, is that it is difficult to look 40 years ahead to the time when I will get the cash for the crop.

567. In forestry, it has always taken a long time between planting and getting cash, and a lot changes during that time. Few farmers will want to commit for that long. In the initial phase, much of the grant is taken up by planting costs. The grant covers the establishment costs, effectively, and there is then a period of no income and few outgoings, and then the final payment comes. That period will reduce, so, in that sense, it should encourage new planting.

568. Against that is making a commitment for long periods. The only way around that is to have a different form of woodland management. That might not be short rotation coppice, in which the land is treated like a crop of grass, but short rotation forestry, where firewood is cut every eight or 10 years. Under that system, there can be more cycles, and income is brought in during phases when the grant is not paid. The wording of the previous grant eligibility criteria did not allow that. I have not yet had the chance to check the current wording, because it is was issued recently.

569. The Chairperson: It was issued on 26 November 2009.

570. Mr Casement: There is also a perception that farmers will lose single farm payments for areas on which they plant trees. One of the best kept secrets in agriculture is that farmers in Northern Ireland are subject to an exemption by which they receive the same amount of single farm payment on a smaller area if some of their land is planted with trees. Therefore, that is not a real issue.

571. The Chairperson: In November 2009, the Department’s statement reminded those who claimed the single farm payment in 2008 that they can now plant and receive the single farm payment as well as the annual farm woodland premium scheme payment.

572. Mr Casement: That has been the case since the single farm payment was introduced, but we are only hearing about it now.

573. The Chairperson: It should have been marketed better.

574. Mr Casement: It should be a strong selling point for the forestry grant system.

575. The Chairperson: In the Department’s statement of around 300 words, that information is contained in the last paragraph before the notes to editors.

576. Mr Casement: It is a curious way of dealing with that, and it is a serious omission.

577. Mr Archdale: The Bill’s proposals for the overarching role of Forest Service contain little or no mention of the benefits that Patrick touched on, including carbon capture, water improvements and the sustainable development elements. There needs to be a duty on the Department to allow for those benefits, although it is not clear how that would be defined. The Department of the Environment is working on that through the biodiversity duty for councils, which will be part of the review of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which the Committee will consider shortly. The issue is not discussed in the Forestry Bill.

578. Mr Casement: On the issue of carbon capture, 90% of the carbon that is stored is in the soils, and only around 10%, if that, is in above-ground vegetation. Planting large numbers of trees will make some difference, but it will be small. The question of where trees are planted is even more important; rushing out and draining all our peatlands must be avoided, because that is where the bulk of carbon is stored.

579. The moment that a deep plough is put through a piece of deep blanket bog, large areas are exposed to oxidisation. Carbon dioxide and methane are produced as a result of that, and that leads to a significant loss of carbon, rather than a gain from the trees that are planted. Therefore, it is imperative that we do not drain and plant our blanket bogs and peatlands. If blanket bogs and peatlands are healthy, they will continue to grow and store more carbon at a rate that is at least as good, if not better, than forestry. There is a balance to be gained, and we have to be very careful that we do not do more damage than good by planting trees all over the place.

580. The Chairperson: Thank you for that presentation. You raised a lot of points that other groups raised, such as the Bill not being ambitious enough and the fact that there could be too much power vested in the Forest Service. Those points have been made to the Committee quite forcefully by a number of groups.

581. I want to go back to the issue of incentivisation. It would be helpful if you would seek a broader view from your members on that point and inform the Committee. We would like to get a handle on what constitutes good incentivisation. In light of the statement made by the Department on 27 November 2009, it would be good to know if that is going the right way. Perhaps you would make a judgement on that, as it is something that we will need to comment on after our deliberations.

582. You do recognise that social and recreational activities could also be commercial ventures. I assume that you will be encouraging those activities as a potential, although not necessarily exclusively, commercial projects.

583. Mr Casement: Our concern is that creating a commercial opportunity from that would deprive the wider public use of the forests. This is public land, and there are huge benefits from public access to that land and from exercise in the countryside. That is something that we are only beginning to get to grips with. We have commissioned research that looks at the public health benefits of the natural environment and we are already getting some very interesting results just from looking at research that has already been done. A lot of research has been done in urban situations, such as urban parks, but there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that access to green spaces makes a huge difference to people’s physical and mental health.

584. We had a discussion about that recently, and I sense that in the council there is a concern that opening forests to commercial operations, whereby people pay to go into a forest to do a certain activity, excludes others from using the forest in a low-key manner. There may be a place for that commercial activity. However, I do not think that it should be the main thrust of forestry policy. We see forests as a public benefit rather than a goldmine for Forest Service.

585. The Chairperson: To get to a forest, most people have to drive or take a bus, and, potentially, have to pay for parking. They can then enjoy a walk in the countryside and perhaps some refreshments that may be available from a vendor.

586. Mr Casement: I do not think that one would have any objection to that. However, there has been talk of aerial walkways and exciting adventure playgrounds and so on.

587. The Chairperson: If people want to bring their pushbikes into forests, will they have to pay for that?

588. Mr Casement: It is important that there is a huge range of things going on in forestry. However, the point I am making is that one would not want to see a directive that points solely towards commercial operations and which excludes a large proportion of the population.

589. The Chairperson: Nowadays, there are very few ventures in the countryside that are free.

590. Mr Archdale: There are 75,500 hectares of land managed by Forest Service, which is not quite the same thing as 75,500 hectares of forest. Last year, its report showed that the access charges were £700,000. Turning the thing on its head, there is an argument to be made that, because that land is publicly owned, there should be a right of access.

591. I am fortunate to live near Gortin Forest Park, and, on the occasions that I go there, I have seen that it is all down to the honesty of individuals as to whether they pay. That £700,000 does not equate to the number of visitors to the forest.

592. The Chairperson: It is not feasible to just use the forests and throw things at one’s feet. We have to pay for maintenance.

593. Mr Archdale: Exactly, so why not acknowledge that fact and say that we are providing these facilities for the public good? That will stop people from thinking that by paying a fee they have the right to damage the facilities. We should turn it around and say that the public has a duty to look after them. There is a positive message there about access and the environment, and we should consider that.

594. The Chairperson: You talked about interpretation of the Bill with regard to commercial timber production that includes development of land. The Department has come back and said:

“The provision in the Bill gives full recognition to the social and environmental aspects of sustainable forestry management."

595. I assume that you continue to disagree with that point.

596. Mr Archdale: The Bill points to the woodland assurance scheme, which is, effectively, the certification under which the Forest Service operates. It is a UK-wide scheme, and there has been recent consultation about it. The proposals in the scheme are broadly in line with our thinking. The Forest Service operates under the same scheme at the moment, so I do not see why it should change. There is nothing in the Bill that would change the current arrangements, under which the Forest Service acts as judge and jury; it makes the decisions. When the Forest Service makes a decision for commercial reasons to fell a coop of timber, it can go ahead and do it, as long as it says that it is meeting the woodland assurance scheme standards.

597. There have been efforts to consult with stakeholders, but those have been incredibly sporadic. The northern region held one consultation last year, which was impressive and thorough. It covered issues such as access, shooting rights, recreation and water quality, but as far as I am aware, that is the only occasion on which any such consultation took place. It did not happen in the western region, as far as I know.

598. I am aware that the Department intends to consult more frequently and on a more holistic basis, but we have their word for it —

599. The Chairperson: To be fair, you are saying that they are not really listening to you.

600. Mr Archdale: We do not see any evidence of it as regards that degree of consultation. There are an awful lot of stakeholders in forestry, and it is difficult to get them all together to tell them what is being planned while saying that it will not impact on any of them.

601. Mr Elliott: Thank you for your presentation, gentlemen. I declare an interest as a farmer.

602. There are a couple of issues. Broadly speaking, does your organisation include representatives from the commercial timber industry?

603. Mr Casement: We do not have any representatives as such. We are all appointed by the Minister as individuals, so there is no representation of bodies on the CNCC in that sense.

604. Mr Elliott: Is there anyone from that industry who would be easily identifiable?

605. Mr Casement: No. We do not have any connection to commercial timber growing at all, in that sense. We are limited by the people who apply to come on to the council, and further limited by the results of interviews —

606. Mr Elliott: I am trying to get a handle on the make-up of the council. You have concentrated on the recreational use of forests, and I have no difficulty with that. I am trying to determine what sort of contact or co-operation that you have with commercial timber producers in order to get a real picture of how they look at things. I am approaching this from the point of view of a farmer who wants to plant 20 acres or 40 acres of woodland. What role do you have with them?

607. Mr Archdale: For a start, I am one of those people.

608. Mr Casement: Me too.

609. Mr Elliott: If I wanted to access the woodland scheme and plant 40 acres of forest, how would you encourage me to do so? To be blunt, what I have heard would almost discourage me from doing so. I am very concerned that Forest Service has overall control. Groups such as you sometimes look at the environmental and nature aspects without looking at the timber production issues.

610. Mr Archdale: From my point of view, the incentive to plant is the fact that, in all likelihood, I will be leaving a legacy to my children when I die, because I very much doubt that I will see the crop come to fruition, particularly because I want to plant broad leaf. I have to balance the particulars of the income that I already derive from the farm annually against what the grant scheme will pay and the amount of effort and hassle that would be involved. Without going too far down that line, there is currently a disconnect between the advice that I receive from countryside management branch, which purely advises on countryside management and farming, and the forestry element. Therefore, when I tell the branch that I wish to plant, it will give me the phone number of the Forest Service representative — I think that there are two of them in total to cover the whole of Northern Ireland — and we will agree a time and discuss the planting requirements. It is then a straightforward commercial decision.

611. If one says that there is a spectrum in farming, with the intensive dairy farmer at one end and the fairly non-intensive part-time farmer at the other, there will be difference in relation to how much weight they put on the environmental versus commercial factors. I freely admit that I am well down on the environmental side. However, that applies to every single farmer in every shape or form. The age range of the farming community is particularly relevant. It makes a lot of the take-up very difficult because most of them say that they will never live to see the fruition.

612. Mr Casement: Peter and I are probably roughly on or just below the average age for farmers, which is a fairly serious thought in itself. However, we are probably exceptions because we are both considering planting more trees. For a lot of people of our age, it is not something that even crosses their minds. This is as much a cultural issue as it is about financial incentive. We would probably be happy with the incentive because we are inclined to plant trees anyway, but I am not sure that it will —

613. The Chairperson: Are you a full-time farmer?

614. Mr Casement: I am no longer a full-time farmer. I have been for 30 years, but I am easing out of farming. In a sense, it is a matter of people’s predispositions. If people could be encouraged to think about planting trees from a more cultural perspective, they may find the incentives more attractive. However, unless they are predisposed to it, there is always the sense that, no matter how big the incentive, people could get more if they did not plant trees, because the land would be available for other things.

615. Mr Archdale: It is a very difficult equation to solve because it is not just an issue here in Northern Ireland. Forest Service puts a lot of effort into trying to get people to plant more trees, but it has failed consistently. The issue is wider: it is down to the long timescale involved. There are some big estates here, although there are more over the water. Such people think in 100- to 200-year timescales. They really believe in planting because they see that that will not benefit them, perhaps not even their children, but the generation beyond that. Forestry requires that long-term view, which, unfortunately, is not terribly common in Northern Ireland.

616. Mr Casement: Since Forest Service was set up in the 1920s, we have traditionally regarded timber as something that is cropped once and then replanted. People here wait until the crop is mature and crop it again rather than treating it as a continuous crop. Forests are managed very differently on the continent, where a continuous harvest is extracted from the forest as opposed to our clear-felling approach. People on the continent view the forest as a continuous source of income rather than waiting 40 years and hoping for a big bonanza. Taking a longer-term view engenders a very different attitude to forestry. However, we are where we are, and it is difficult to move from one system to another.

617. The Chairperson: We could move to another system if there were a proper incentive.

618. Mr Casement: If we could find a way of incentivising a shift away from clear-felling and towards more continuous-cover forestry, we would see a gradual shift in attitudes, but that will take time.

619. Mr Elliott: I have still not heard what your organisation and Forest Service will do to encourage the farming community to plant more forests. I do not think that Forest Service does a particularly good job in that regard either. The farming community is the only source through which additional forests will be planted, unless Forest Service attempts to buy more land, an approach that seems to have slowed greatly. I am sorry for being blunt, but I have not heard anything from you or anyone else about what can be done to create real incentives to encourage planting. I am interested in forestry, and I have some of my own.

620. Mr Archdale: Is what is missing a master plan, or grand vision, of how Northern Ireland should be forested? Our fragmented land ownership makes it difficult for the Government to target money at big concepts, such as ecosystem services, and achieve ancillary goals such as linking with other forests, protecting ancient woodland and targets on water quality and the carbon catch. This is big thinking —

621. Mr Elliott: If you do not mind me saying, that is not in the interests of farmers. Those are not the issues that are on farmers’ minds. What is on the minds of farmers who milk 40 or 50 cows, or who have 40 or 50 suckler cows, is that their work will no longer be sustainable. There is an opportunity where there are less intensive farming methods, and the single farm payment pushes that agenda. More farmers are going out of business, and this should be the perfect opportunity to plant more trees and have more forest cover. However, it is not happening because farmers do not see that they will get a viable return.

622. Mr Archdale: The financial element is central, but the timescale makes it difficult.

623. Returning to my point about the bigger picture, Jim McAdam of the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute has been doing some interesting work on agri-forestry, which benefits both stock and forestry. We also saw good examples of that in Wales. However, there is no incentive for the Government to consider that approach, because they look at things in isolation. More joined-up government is needed. Let me be blunt: Forest Service does not even know how much forest it owns or where it is. It has a pretty good idea, but a public inventory is missing. How can the Government, who are represented by Forest Service, give a strong lead? It is a mystery?

624. Mr Casement: The situation is complicated. Peter Archdale is talking about joined-up government, but we are an advisory body to the Department of the Environment and talking to farmers is not part of our remit. We are only here because the Committee invited us.

625. The Chairperson: I appreciate that. Is your council appointed by the DOE?

626. Mr Casement: Yes, it is.

627. The Chairperson: How many people sit on the council?

628. Mr Casement: There are about 18 of us.

629. The Chairperson: Are their salaries paid from the public purse?

630. Mr Casement: All the members are volunteers, except for myself and Peter Archdale.

631. Mr Archdale: We are also volunteers.

632. Mr Casement: Basically, we are volunteers, but we receive a small sum.

633. The Chairperson: Does the council have a budget to carry out its work?

634. Mr Casement: We have an approximate budget.

635. The Chairperson: What size is that approximately?

636. Mr Casement: I cannot tell you, because we do not have access to that information. We make a case to the Department for what we want to do, and it either says yes or no.

637. The Chairperson: Essentially, you are answerable to the Minister of the Environment.

638. Mr Casement: Yes, we are.

639. Mr Shannon: I will follow on from what Tom Elliott asked you. All farmers and landowners want to see how they can best utilise their land due to diminishing returns in their businesses. They have to look for alternative sources of income. Forestry is more than a walk in the park; for many, it represents an income over a number of years.

640. The Chairperson mentioned the incentive that there is in the woodland grant scheme. There is a bigger emphasis on planting broadleaf trees than there is on planting conifer trees. From what you have said, I presume that you welcome the incentive to plant broadleaf trees. Patrick Archdale mentioned a vision. Does that vision match the vision of landowners and farmers? I am not sure that it does.

641. Mr Casement: I suspect that it does not. Our vision is for a much more interconnected network of woodlands across Northern Ireland. In small woodland, our emphasis is on broadleaf trees rather than commercial conifers, although there can be blocks of commercial forestry here and there. How do you persuade individuals to plant certain trees when they are not very interested in doing so and cannot see a return? That is the problem that we have raised.

642. Mr Shannon: By their very nature, landowners and farmers will want to start off by planting trees in sections of fields. Most farmers are involved already that process. Farms in Northern Ireland are much smaller, so it is harder for farmers to find places to plant trees.

643. I do not disagree with you about the ploughing-up of bogs. When the furrow hits a bog, some of the ecosystem of that bog may be destroyed. However, a landowner or farmer will want to forest land that is perfectly productive from an arable farming point of view. Are you saying that they should not do that?

644. Mr Casement: No; I was talking purely about peatland soils, not mineral soils. In general, it is not a problem to grow trees on land that is suitable for arable farming and for growing crops and grass. I am talking about upland peat primarily as well as lowland peat bogs, which are inappropriate places to grow commercial trees.

645. Mr Shannon: You said that it is important where trees are planted. Are you saying that trees should be planted closer to towns? What did you mean?

646. Mr Casement: Again, I meant that trees should not be planted on our peatlands. Peatlands are our prime carbon stores, so planting on them risks doing more damage and increases in carbon dioxide.

647. Mr Archdale: The countryside management scheme rewards farmers for planting riparian zones with trees. That is an attempt to improve water quality, and is an ancillary benefit of forestry. That timber is not expected to be harvested in any productive form. It may well end up as firewood or coppice, but such planting is encouraged to improve water quality.

648. Mr Shannon: You said that the Forest Service cannot quantify how much the land it owns. I was told in reply to a question to the Minister how much land the Forest Service owns. Therefore, they may have some idea about what they control.

649. Many and diffuse groups want to use Forestry Service property and land. It is not impossible to have a portion of forestry made available for mountain bike riding, for example, or picnicking, walks in the park, shooting, or, if there are ponds, for angling. There are lots of opportunities if the land is managed correctly. There is a place in the Forestry Bill for everyone. Do you agree?

650. Mr Casement: There certainly should be, although I am not convinced that there is.

651. Mr Archdale: That comes back to my point about the woodland assurance scheme. It is impossible to tell any one group to decide the relative priorities and the best way to proceed for woodland. It is a stakeholder process, and I strongly favour using a stakeholder mechanism that can be used to arrive at a consensus for that management. At the moment, it is handed down on tablets of stone from the Forest Service, which decides on limits of access or what land will be available, for example, for mountain biking. The absence of that mechanism is what concerns us. Put simply, good democracy will determine the balance of advantages and disadvantages for each group.

652. The Chairperson: I think that you will find conifers better for snipe-shooting. Jim, is that right?

653. Mr Shannon: I have some hardwoods on my land, but they will be there until the day that I die, and probably my son and grandchild. However, they are there for one purpose: to shoot pigeons. [Laughter.] That is it, and I am quite honest about that. I can do that. My point is that everyone can do that.

654. Mr Savage: You spoke about your visit to forests in Wales. How does our Forest Service compare with government forestry services across the rest of the UK?

655. Mr Archdale: I am not in any way qualified, or have the knowledge, to answer that. I was specifically referring to an organisation called Coed Cymru, which was set up to facilitate the establishment of small producers and suppliers. Farmers, too, can avail of its services. The organisation recognises that woodlands provide far more than just commercial softwoods or hardwoods, and that a great range of businesses are involved at all levels with forestry. Coed Cymru’s role is to facilitate the joining up of producers and suppliers, and make the market work better. That was my impression after two visits to that organisation.

656. Mr Savage: Is the Forest Service lacking something or lagging behind? Could it do more? By the way, Chairman, I declare an interest. Could more be done to encourage woodland planting in Northern Ireland? I am thinking of all the government land, so if they are encouraging the private sector to plant trees, why are they not doing it themselves?

657. Mr Archdale: The forestry market in Northern Ireland —

658. Mr Savage: I am being guided by what you people are saying, because, although I am not involved in the industry, I am very keen to listen to what you have to say.

659. Mr Archdale: I hesitate to speak authoritatively on the subject, but my observation is that the market here is monolithic. The commercial reality is that we have a limited number of mills, which get five-year contracts. I would like to fell two and a half acres of mature Sitka spruce that my father planted in 1960. It is lovely timber, but it is not worth felling. After costs, I would get about £1,000 for it, which is daft. However, that is the reality of small-scale woodland production at the moment.

660. In the 1960s, farmers were encouraged, much like now, to plant trees in corners of their land, although, nowadays, they plant hardwoods rather than softwoods. Should we not be facilitating, for example, biomass production from softwood woodchip? That is the sort of joined-up approach that is missing. I do not know the market well enough to suggest how to get round such problems, but things seem to work better in Wales than here. That is as much as I can say on the subject, and I would not like to get any further into it.

661. Mr Casement: We saw an extraordinary Coed Cymru project to change the market in Wales by developing a house that can be built from Sitka spruce timber. Traditionally, we thought that home-grown timber was inappropriate for house building because it is not strong enough. However, Coed Cymru created a modular house that could be used in any circumstance and put together to create various types of housing. As a result, home-grown Sitka spruce now has potentially much higher value. Those houses can be put up overnight, at a cost of £40,000 each.

662. That sort of vision that is lacking here; looking at the thing from start to finish, not just growing trees, but considering what to do with the timber, carrying the whole process through from one end to the other.

663. Mr Savage: It is interesting that you mention your vision for the future, because wooden chalets are being advertised in some of the farming magazines, so you would be entering a niche market. Do we provide the type of timber here that would address those issues?

664. Mr Casement: The project that we saw in Wales was producing proper and permanent housing with incredibly low heating costs, etc. To run one of them would cost something like £100 a year in electricity. They are quite extraordinary houses. It is cutting-edge stuff, which was very interesting and exciting to see. In our forest industry, one does not get that sense of vision or energy.

665. One point that we did not mention about Coed Cymru, which I think that the Chairman might be interested in, is that I believe that there is only one salaried individual directly employed. I believe that there are eight individuals who are all on secondment from other organisations that recognise the value that they get from it.

666. Mr Savage: Chairman, I want to follow up what Mr Archdale said about the lack of vision. You gentlemen are employed by DOE. Will DOE give planning permission to build the type of chalets that we have discussed?

667. The Chairman: George, just for the record — [Laughter.]

668. Mr Casement: I have to admit that that is beyond our expertise.

669. The Chairperson: I do not think that DOE could afford Patrick. [Laughter.]

670. Mr Savage: You talk about vision and expertise. Has enough knowledge been obtained and background work been done to take projects forward into that niche market?

671. Mr Casement: Certainly, that has been happening in Wales. I cannot answer whether planning permission will be granted. If someone has planning permission for a house, that person has a right to put a house there. That is the individual’s choice. That is beyond my expertise.

672. The Chairperson: We will move on.

673. Mr Burns: I apologise for my late arrival. I missed the start of your presentation. Everybody wants more trees and woodland to be planted, and for that to be part of land management. However, it comes down to whether farmers would consider that to be profitable, as Tom mentioned. A farmer who is involved in forestry and planting trees would be considered an upmarket farmer. Ordinary farmers would not be involved in that.

674. Mr Elliott: Just for the record, I do not class myself as upmarket. [Laughter.]

675. Mr Burns: You are, Tom; there is no question about it. I want to ask about woodland insurance. We see pictures of forest fires in the news. You could have woodland that has matured for a number of years; beautiful tress that have grown for 15 or 20 years, and someone could light a fire in the forest, the fire gets out of control, the wind takes a grip of it and the entire woodland burns. Years and years of work and waiting, which has been passed from one generation to another — a legacy — is destroyed.

676. The Chairperson: It goes up in smoke.

677. Mr Burns: Yes. Is that not a great fear for people who have planted those trees?

678. Mr Archdale: I suspect that you are right. There is that fear. In response to that, I would point out that, according to its own figures in last year’s report, the Forest Service has 61,000 hectares of forest and lost 38 hectares to fire, which, in proportional terms, does not indicate high risk.

679. As members know well, particularly if they happen to be farming down Fermanagh way at the moment, it is a fairly risky business. You are a victim of external circumstances. Although I have never felt it necessary, I believe that it is possible to take out insurance. Like all insurance, it is based entirely on risk.

680. Mr Burns: Last week, people told us about planting trees. They said that trees would not only be at risk from fire but, if there were exceptional storms, the wind could blow them down. You have got to know where to plant trees. Not everywhere is suitable. A tremendous storm could come in and blow a crop down.

681. Mr Casement: I go back to the type of forestry that is planted: you must plant the right trees on the right ground. Continuous-cover forestry is much more resistant to wind throw than the conventional forestry that we practise. Therefore, a block of forest that has trees of mixed ages in it, rather than trees that are all exactly the same age, will be much more resistant.

682. If you fell out trees continuously, on an almost annual basis, the forest is much more resistant to wind throw. Baronscourt Estate in Tyrone has already practised that and has found that, even during the most severe storms, they lose far fewer trees.

683. They are also much more resistant to fire, because there is no uniform stand of very close trees that are all touching each other. Those are two additional benefits to continuous-cover forestry, apart from the other benefits that I have mentioned. It is resistant to storms and resistant to fire.

684. Mr W Clarke: I am sorry that I missed your presentation, but I am getting the general gist of it. I apologise if I ask a question that you have already answered. What are your views on using forest cover to help to eradicate flooding? You have probably mentioned that in association with blanket bogs, and the two working together. The point about forests close to towns and cities is a good point to make for two reasons: they provide social and recreational well-being and also act as a carbon sink around those areas, thus combating the emissions from the traffic that goes into town and city centres.

685. Finally, I totally agree that biomass presents a good opportunity for us at this stage to replicate what was done in Scotland, where wood-power stations were set up, and also to create the confidence for people to buy into the technologies and start growing the timber for it. It also uses not just the willow but the remnants of harvesting. There is a need to start managing our forests in a better manner. I think that that point should be referred to in the Bill. Who should lead the way? Should it be the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM), or should it be the Forest Service that decides how much biomass the public sector should have, and that the biomass heating systems should be procured?

686. Mr Archdale: Those are really great questions, because what you are really asking is where the edges of the system are. I mean that in a process sense. To be honest, big government, whether here or across the water, finds those questions really difficult, even down to asking whether to plant wind farms on top of hills, and matters like that. I will try to give an answer.

687. I had a look at the recent sustainable development consultation from OFMDFM, and my initial impression was that it was lacking hard targets, but it is a very good structure. It is a framework that matters like that should be fitted into, because we need to find the answers to those sorts of questions. Those answers will be translated into Programme for Government targets that civil servants can then actually work towards achieving, and can adapt policies to make those things happen.

688. A lot of those questions are under the sustainable development umbrella, and they have not been well addressed up to now. Expertise is developing; for example, DARD is starting to focus on post 2012 common agricultural policy (CAP), as you are well aware. That is going to be interesting. One of the elements of that is carbon capture and carbon accounting; another is water-quality issues, and the question of how we reward farmers and landowners for those services. Those are the ecosystem services that I spoke about before. Your comments fit very well within that. At the position that we are in at the moment, it is difficult to find the centre of that, but it probably sits within OFMDFM. The other point is that there should be recognition of those obligations, in some shape or form, within the Bill. In a simplistic sense, it is a duty of sustainable development.

689. Dr W McCrea: I noted that the opening comments of your submission state that your organisation:

“welcomes the intention to bring forward new legislation".

690. That is one thing. There is a lot in those few words. That tells me that you welcome the intention, but I am not so sure whether you welcome what comes after the intent. Therefore, I will ask a straightforward question: does the legislation that has been presented show you that the Department is serious about forestry development and achieving sustainability?

691. Your silence says it all. If your answer were yes, it would have been a quick answer. Your silence speaks volumes.

692. Mr Casement: I think that it does.

693. Dr W McCrea: Forget about courtesy.

694. Mr Casement: It is not to do with courtesy; it is to do with having a very qualified yes, and how one would qualify that yes. There is a definite attempt and intention in the Bill to address those issues.

695. Dr W McCrea: Yes, but intent in the Bill is not enough.

696. Mr Casement: Exactly; that is the point that I am coming to.

697. Dr W McCrea: The point is the substance of the Bill. When putting a Bill through the House, it must have substance, not intention.

698. Mr Casement: That is the point that I am coming to; we do not think that the Bill goes far enough or spells out clearly enough how the issues of sustainable development will be addressed.

699. Dr W McCrea: To cut to the chase, do you believe that the Bill lacks substance, and that more substance is needed to make it a good Bill?

700. Mr Casement: It is complicated, because we want to see more forests, and a lot of those issues are expressed in the Bill.

701. The Chairperson: We are trying to see the wood through the trees.

702. Mr Casement: It is a bit like trying to see the wood through the trees, but the problem is how those issues are managed and addressed, and the detail of doing so. It may not be appropriate to put that into the Bill.

703. Dr W McCrea: With the greatest respect, that has to come into it somewhere. If there is to be substance to the Bill, questions have to be answered. If those questions are not answered, the Bill will go through with only an expression of intent.

704. Mr Archdale: Part of our reticence is also the fact that it has taken 54 years to get a revision of the previous Bill.

705. Dr W McCrea: Is it not important, having waited for that period of time, to have a Bill with substance and to get it right?

706. Mr Casement: I agree entirely. I am worried that some of the changes that we want to see in forestry in Northern Ireland are matters of detail and management. Those issues would have to be catered for in the Bill, but they need not or should not be spelt out because circumstances will change, and one can tie one’s hands too much by having too prescriptive a Bill. It is difficult to comment in that sense. The intention may be enough as long as it is the right intention and it enables the right things to be done. To make it absolutely prescriptive would be a mistake. That is one of the reasons that I am having a little bit of difficulty in addressing your question.

707. Mr Archdale: It would be a complete tragedy if we went down the road of the Forestry Act 1919 in the UK. That changed the emphasis on forestry to production because we nearly lost the war due to a pit-prop shortage. As a result of that, irreplaceable ancient woodlands were being destroyed right up until the 1960s. They were being blown up with dynamite or bulldozed. That is the problem that causes us to hesitate.

708. We are operating within what we know at the moment, and the circumstances that we know at the moment. If your constituents are not being fed properly, and we need to cut down some timber or move to agri-forestry whereby we are moving stock under trees, there must be flexibility in the Bill to deal with that. The challenge is to couch a piece of legislation that describes the intent but keeps some flexibility to allow for changing circumstances, particularly about our understanding of carbon accounting, contribution to global warming, and such matters.

709. Dr W McCrea: Gentlemen, you are an advisory council and, therefore, you give advice. We want you to advise us how to make the Forestry Bill the proper Bill that it should be. If you cannot advise the Committee as to what should be in the Bill and what should be the parameters or guidance, what is the meeting all about? You have been set up by government to give advice.

710. Mr Archdale: I submit that we have given you some advice.

711. Mr Casement: We have submitted some advice and some comments on the Bill. We have come today and given our views on how we think it should go forward. If you want more, we need to know exactly what you want more of. I am not clear as to what you want us to do. We are not parliamentary legislators or draftsmen.

712. Dr W McCrea: I am not looking for you to do that. We have enough of them.

713. Mr Casement: I have no doubt about that. However, we can give only a certain amount of advice. We rely on people to give their time voluntarily to do this. We are not a think tank that is paid vast sums of money to come up with the perfect solution, and we are not experts. We cover a huge range of issues, so we can do only our very best here. We can do more, but it would take some time, and I do not think that time is on everyone’s side.

714. Mr W McCrea: Do you think that enough protection is given to ancient woodlands?

715. Mr Casement: No.

716. Dr W McCrea: So, should that be strengthened?

717. Mr Casement: Yes, and I think that we mentioned that there should be absolute protection. We would definitely say that.

718. The Chairperson: I appreciate the time that you have given to the Committee, and I appreciate your answers.

8 December 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Pat Doherty
Mr William Irwin
Dr William McCrea
Mr George Savage
Mr Jim Shannon

Witnesses:

Mr Nick Harkness Mr Mike McClure Mr John News		Sport Northern Ireland
Mr John Hetherington		Premier Woodlands Ltd
Mr Roger Pollen Mr John Hetherington		British Association for Shooting and Conservation

719. The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Elliott): I welcome the representatives from Sport Northern Ireland. Please make a short presentation, after which Committee members will ask some questions.

720. Mr Nick Harkness (Sport Northern Ireland): Thank you very much, Chairman.

721. I thank the Committee for the opportunity to give evidence on this important Bill. I am the director of participation at Sport Northern Ireland. Mr John News is our participation manager, and both of us are generalists in sport. We have brought along Mr Mike McClure, who is our countryside development officer and who specialises in the development of participation opportunities in countryside sports.

722. In Sport Northern Ireland, we believe that forests provide a unique and vital opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to lead physically active lives. We see the Bill as an opportunity to secure their use for that purpose.

723. We would like to give you a brief introduction to the work of Sport Northern Ireland, the lead public body for the development of sport and physical recreation in Northern Ireland. We will introduce you to some context issues of public health and well-being to which, we believe, forests are well-placed to contribute. We will also propose some modest, but nonetheless important, modifications to the Forestry Bill.

724. As regards the strategy for investing in and developing sport, we propose a vision of a culture of lifelong enjoyment and success in sport. That is articulated in our strategy and in the new strategy for sport, which was approved by the Executive last week. We have three strategic objectives to meet to deliver that aim: first, to increase participation in sport; secondly, to improve sporting performances; and thirdly, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of sport and sporting bodies.

725. Our strategic aims contribute to the overall strategy for sport, as I have said. It was developed largely by John and me with the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL). Last week, it was approved by the Executive. It proposes three relevant areas of investment; three pillars of work, which are participation, performance and places for sport. Of particular relevance to the Forestry Bill, as regards how the forest infrastructure can contribute, are participation and places for sport.

726. We believe that government invest in sport for two reasons. First, there is the intrinsic value of sport — it is good in and of itself — and the personal benefits that enjoyment of it brings to people. Secondly, there is the extrinsic or social benefit that promotes other government agendas, such as social capital, regeneration, contribution to GDP, health benefits, and so on.

727. Mr John News (Sport Northern Ireland): I will not take you through the detail of the draft strategy — sorry, I must stop calling it the draft strategy — the strategy, which has been approved by the Executive. I will simply give you a flavour of how it was developed and what it will attempt to achieve in the next 10 years.

728. At its heart is a vision of a culture of lifelong enjoyment and success in sport. As Nick has already mentioned, we consider that outdoor recreation has an important part to play in that culture. When we developed that vision, that strapline, there was a definite emphasis on trying to effect cultural change. We envisage a Northern Ireland where, in 10 years’ time, there will be an approach to recreation, participation and active lifestyles that is similar to the approach that we see in places such as Australia or Scandinavian countries, where sport and physical activity is a way to bring communities and families together and to promote intergenerational work.

729. All of that is premised on a notion that the strategy will also help the Executive to deliver the Programme for Government. Therefore, the strategy seeks to promote economic growth and job creation; to improve the health and well-being of people in Northern Ireland; and to facilitate skills development. We see sports and events as having an important role to play in improving Northern Ireland’s image at home and abroad. We will return to those aims a bit later on; Michael will pick up on some of them in his contribution.

730. The strategy was not prepared simply by DCAL and Sport Northern Ireland. An extensive consultation process was undertaken, with events throughout Northern Ireland that involved district councils and community and voluntary sector organisations. We are pleased to say that all of the Departments and a number of arm’s-length bodies and agencies, such as the Forest Service, responded to the consultation at that stage.

731. The strategy for sport is a people-centred document; therefore, it is about improving quality of life. It is not simply about structures and setting up organisations. It is about how sport can improve quality of life for people in Northern Ireland.

732. Sport Northern Ireland is not here simply to talk about what other people must do. Tollymore Mountain Centre is an important element in the delivery of the strategy. Sport Northern Ireland has invested in outdoor recreation for a number of years. In particular, it looks forward to the completion in early 2010 of what will be a world-class national outdoor centre in Tollymore forest.

733. Tollymore Mountain Centre, for those who are not familiar with it, is already a world-class centre. However, when the project is completed, we will have the buildings and facilities to go alongside that. Every year, the centre trains over 230 leaders, who, in turn, cascade their experience and the benefit of their knowledge to thousands of young people right across Northern Ireland, giving them an opportunity to have a positive experience, to learn about the environment that they grow up in, to explore their own boundaries, and to have a more positive, life-enriching experience.

734. As regards the context in which the strategy has been developed, we have predicated it on the Programme for Government, particularly certain aspects of it, such as health and well-being. We provided some data on obesity to the Committee in advance of today’s meeting. Obviously, that is a predominant issue for the Assembly. Just last month, the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety produced a report on obesity.

735. Although obesity figures are familiar to many people, it is worthwhile reiterating some of them: 59% of adults in Northern Ireland are either overweight or obese; 22% of children are either overweight or obese; and 260,000 working days are lost to Northern Ireland because of obesity, with a cost to the economy of £500 million per annum. That is the downside. The flipside is that only 30% of people in Northern Ireland meet the Chief Medical Officer’s recommendations for physical activity. There is a direct correlation between the percentage of people who are overweight and obese and the number of people who actually achieve the level of activity recommended in the guidelines.

736. Therefore, the strategy is very much focused on upping the percentage of people who meet the Chief Medical Officer’s recommendation. It is about getting more people to be physically active. We see it as also helping to improve economic competitiveness: if more people are active, they are less likely to be off work due to ill health or stress-related illness. They are also less likely to feel pressured within a work environment or climate.

737. Why would forests be important in the context of the strategy? We believe that they are important because they provide individuals with many and varied opportunities and the ability to exercise personal choice as to the type of opportunities in which they want to become involved. They afford individuals opportunities to take personal responsibility for their actions. They also provide opportunities for individuals to get involved in low-cost activities. It costs nothing to go for a walk through a forest park.

738. Obviously, cost is one aspect that we have focused on in the strategy. We want to ensure that physical activity, sport and recreation are accessible to everyone, and not just to people who can afford to pay to play. Finally, we want to ensure that it is inclusive. Those words encapsulate the principles upon which the strategy for sport and physical recreation has been premised.

739. Mr Mike McClure (Sport Northern Ireland): We also provided the Committee with information on the differences between the situation in England, Scotland and Wales and the situation in Northern Ireland. When you look at the number of public rights of way and the access opportunities that people have to take part in outdoor recreation, they are considerably fewer in Northern Ireland than they are across the water. For example, Northern Ireland has only 129 miles of recorded public rights of way, whereas England has 118,000 miles. That equates to 2·3 miles per sq mile, compared with 0·02 miles in Northern Ireland.

740. Legislation that covers access also differs greatly. In England and Wales, legislation was reviewed around 2000. That resulted in what is known as the CROW Act — Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 — in England and Wales and the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 in Scotland. Both pieces of legislation have increased the capacity for outdoor recreation considerably by opening up upland, moorland, and, in Scotland’s case, all land, for outdoor recreation, with caveats of responsibility.

741. In Northern Ireland, the Department of the Environment has made it clear that it has no intention of carrying out that process and we must, therefore, work within the Access to the Countryside (Northern Ireland) Order 1983. We feel that there is an opportunity for the Forestry Bill to provide access to publicly owned land for outdoor recreation. That access is not provided for in the current legislation.

742. One of the reasons for the difference in the legislation is that the landowning style and history in Northern Ireland is very different to that in Scotland, England and Wales. That is a major factor. The situation in Scotland has been shown to work, and we believe that the same situation could work here if there were increased access to public land.

743. In Northern Ireland, the Forest Service and DARD own 5·7% of the total land area in Northern Ireland. That is a considerable amount of public land. In England and Wales, the Forestry Commission has seen it as a clear responsibility and a statutory requirement to provide for outdoor recreation to the public. We think that the Bill provides an opportunity to recognise that role and to place a duty on the Department to provide for outdoor recreation. Coillte, which is the forest service in the Republic of Ireland, has also seen the responsibility as a licence to provide outdoor recreation facilities.

744. In 2008, we commissioned research on the development of outdoor recreation through the Countryside Access and Activities Network. Anecdotally, we believed that we were seeing an increase in the number of people participating in outdoor recreation, but we wanted to confirm it, and we saw a considerable increase in participation — the research highlighted a 152% increase over the past 12 years. The Tourist Board identified activity tourism as a winning theme for Northern Ireland in developing the economy, and the two signature projects for the Mournes and the Causeway Coast and glens have highlighted outdoor recreation and activity tourism as significant aspects of that role.

745. Furthermore, a number of high-quality, innovative products have been developed for outdoor recreation in Northern Ireland. In particular, the development of the canoe trails has been recognised nationally in Ireland, internationally in Europe and in England, Scotland and Wales as being unique, innovative and award-winning. Again, there is an opportunity for the Forest Service to develop something that is unique to our forest parks.

746. The Treasury has established a value for recreational visits, which is used to create the subvention for the Forestry Commission in GB. That research has been used to identify that the recreational use of forests in Great Britain contributes £585 million to the GB economy. Using the Barnett formula for Northern Ireland, that would equate to £16·8 million of economic value through recreational visits to forests. The overall social and environmental value of forests in Great Britain has also been calculated to be £1·5 billion. That study was carried out by the Centre for Research in Environmental Appraisal and Management at Newcastle University.

747. Mr Harkness: To summarise, Sport Northern Ireland proposes four modest, but nonetheless important, modifications to the Bill. First, we believe that it could be modified to more clearly recognise the high value that forests can have for the recreation, health and well-being of the Northern Ireland population. We believe that, as it stands, the Bill underplays the contribution that forests can make to the quality of life of people in Northern Ireland.

748. Secondly, we propose that the Bill be amended to place a duty on the Department and the Forest Service to provide recreational opportunities in forests for public enjoyment and health. We believe that that is consistent with the work that is being proposed and developed in the strategy for sport and cross-departmental anti-obesity work that is already under way. As a result of that modification, the Forest Service could become one of a number of lead bodies in Northern Ireland delivering outdoor-recreation and physical-activity opportunities.

749. Thirdly, we believe that the Bill rightly articulates the tourism opportunities available in the forest estate, but it underplays the value of forests to our local population. We believe that the value of forests and the recreation and physical well-being opportunities that they offer could be more greatly emphasised.

750. Finally, we propose that the Bill be amended to include a statutory right for sustainable and reasonable recreation in forests rather than simply a statutory right of pedestrian access. The Scottish example shows that that is a workable proposal with valuable outcomes.

751. My colleagues said that Sport Northern Ireland already has a footprint in Tollymore forest park with an outdoor recreation training facility that trains leaders, who, in turn, provide young people and beginners with active-lifestyle opportunities and introduce people to the countryside. We understand that the Committee’s next meeting will be at Castlewellan on January 20. We are developing a £5 million state-of-the-art, international-standard facility there, and we would love to invite the Committee to see it on that or some other date.

752. The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. I should have apologised at the outset for the Chairperson’s absence. He is in the Chamber for the Final Stage of the Diseases of Animals Bill. He should join us later.

753. Does Sport NI recognise the shooting fraternity as a sporting organisation?

754. Mr McClure: As an Olympic sport, shooting is a recognised sporting activity, but hunting as such is not a recognised sporting activity.

755. The Deputy Chairperson: Do you see any conflict in the Bill between what I will call sporting organisations, because they classify themselves as such and have licences and permits to shoot in forests, and wider tourist activities or statutory rights for sustainable and responsible recreation in forests?

756. Mr McClure: Not really. There is considerable shooting on the Scottish uplands at certain times of year, where systems and procedures clearly inform walkers, hikers and cyclists of shooting times. That works over there, and there is no reason why a similar scheme could not work in the public estate in Northern Ireland. That would require restrictions on walkers at times, but no one could object to that when hunting and culling are taking place.

757. Mr News: Although we would like greater access rights, with those rights comes responsibility. Sport NI’s approach to promoting outdoor recreation is to balance rights with responsibilities. It is a question of responsible use, but individuals, too, have a responsibility in how they interact with other users. Examples of good practice are shared-use walking, cycling and horse-riding trails. Each user must respect the other users and recognise that they, too, have rights.

758. The Deputy Chairperson: I am pleased that you mentioned that, because the Committee hears a lot about giving people greater access rights but very little about the responsibilities that go with those rights. People expect to be able to go across land and use it for leisure or enjoyment, but they forget about their responsibilities towards that land and its owners. The Committee is happy to receive further information on how you see that system operating.

759. Mr McClure: We require all our outdoor sports to adopt the principles of the Leave No Trace programme, which has been adopted throughout Ireland and is a worldwide movement of responsible use of the outdoors. The programme is less of a countryside code with a set of dos and don’ts and more of an ethical and educational process to teach people how to behave responsibly towards landowners, other users, livestock and wildlife.

760. The Deputy Chairperson: That is useful. Do you have a policy on liability for the owners? We are all conscious of insurance claims. Have you any advice that you can give on the responsibility or liability of those who use the forests and their owners?

761. Mr McClure: We do not have a policy on liability. Last year, we, along with the Countryside Recreation Network, which is a UK-wide body of all the organisations involved in countryside recreation, commissioned research through Sheffield Hallam University to look at that issue and the number of cases. There are remarkably few successful cases where someone has been sued for recreational activities by a landowner. Often, insurance companies will pay out-of-court settlements. That research has been done, and it was quite an extensive piece of work. It can be made available to the Committee.

762. The Deputy Chairperson: That would also be useful. Your final recommendation to modify the Bill was:

“To provide a statutory right for sustainable and responsible recreation in forests rather than just a statutory right of pedestrian access."

763. I assume that that cannot happen on its own; it is a much bigger issue and must be done in conjunction with other bodies or organisations. You do not just provide sustainable recreation. Surely, other co-operative and statutory bodies must be involved, or are you expecting Forest Service to do it all?

764. Mr McClure: I will give an example of what happened in Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage was the lead agency on the issue, and it worked up the legislation that opened up Scotland for public access. However, along with that, it also developed the ‘Scottish Outdoor Access Code’, which is quite a thick document that details what constitutes responsible access and what activities are within scope. For example, the responsible sustainable access was for non-motorised activity. Therefore, if people want to take part in motorised activity, they must have a licence or a permit. However, Scottish Natural Heritage gave clear definitions of what constituted responsible sustainable recreational activities.

765. You are absolutely right; there would be a need to work up what that would do. Sport NI and, I imagine, the Department of the Environment would be willing to work alongside Forest Service to develop something like a forest access code that could be used in conjunction with opening that up.

766. Mr News: You asked about partnership and not just expecting Forest Service to do this on its own. There are examples of partnership working in places such as Scotland, Yorkshire and the Lake District where forests have been opened up to other forms of pedestrian and non-pedestrian access, whether that involves cycling, walking or water-based activities. That has not been done just by the Forestry Commission or by Scottish National Heritage; it has been done in partnership with governing bodies of sport, the district councils in those areas, and the private sector. It has been done successfully, to the point where it has helped to rejuvenate and regenerate some of those rural communities. It has helped to bring new jobs to those areas, it has helped to attract new visitors, and it has helped to improve the quality of life for people living in those areas, such as Dalby Forest in north Yorkshire.

767. The Deputy Chairperson: Of course, one does not have to go to Scotland or England to see examples. Fermanagh District Council runs a successful partnership with Forest Service, and I declare an interest as a member of Fermanagh District Council and a landowner.

768. Dr W McCrea: I am glad that the Chairperson pressed you on your demand for the right of access and the increasing right of access. Clause 2(1) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 states that:

“A person has access rights only if they are exercised responsibly."

769. Mr McClure: Absolutely.

770. Dr W McCrea: Who makes that judgement call?

771. Mr McClure: It comes down to the individual acting responsibly. However, there are clear definitions of what those responsibilities are, and Scottish National Heritage can —

772. Dr W McCrea: That is not good enough. You say that it is up to the individual, but who takes liability if someone is looking for access across farmland, etc?

773. Mr Harkness: Many of the governing bodies who look after the sports in which the participants will be members have codes of conduct which advise their membership on reasonable behaviour. The ultimate sanction is loss of membership of the association and, therefore, the ability to participate.

774. Dr W McCrea: Who would be liable if animals died, for instance, through their actions?

775. Mr Harkness: It would be a personal liability.

776. Dr W McCrea: So the person who has gained the access across the land that everybody is looking for would be liable.

777. Mr Harkness: Yes.

778. Mr News: We have talked about statutory access for sustainable and responsible recreation. However, we are talking about the Forestry Bill rather than a wider debate about access to all land, to which you rightly referred. The strategy for sport and physical recreation sets a target to have access to publicly owned lands, in the first instance, over the next 10 years. There has been a long-running debate throughout the UK about access, and, particularly in Northern Ireland, about liability and responsibility. The consultees to the strategy for sport and physical recreation felt that if we could make publicly owned land accessible, then, within 10 years, private landowners would have a degree of confidence, and liability would not be such an issue that it is perceived to be today. Time will tell, but the strategy looked at publicly owned land in the first instance.

779. Dr W McCrea: In all your opening remarks, you and Mr Harkness made only general comments. In fact, the Forestry Bill was not mentioned until your last sentence, just before you handed over to Mr McClure. I was wondering where the Forestry Bill came in the midst of it all. Who should have responsibility for the upkeep of the rights of way?

780. Mr McClure: That responsibility currently rests with district councils.

781. Dr W McCrea: Therefore, if any right of way is designated —

782. Mr McClure: The council has responsibility for the maintenance of asserted rights of way. However, a number of rights of way are not asserted, but are deemed to be rights of way by the public; councils have no responsibility for those.

783. Dr W McCrea: The Forestry Bill does not just take in sport, in which you have an interest. You know that there is a lack of wooded areas in Northern Ireland; in fact, it is has less than most regions. How can the Department not only promote but expand forests in Northern Ireland? That would achieve your end, because sporting activities cannot take place in the wooded areas if they are not there.

784. Mr Harkness: We are the wrong people to advise on the expansion of forested areas. We have an interest in countryside recreation per se —

785. Dr W McCrea: Do you not have any comments to make?

786. Mr McClure: Over the past number of years, I have noticed that a number of large private landowners have become interested in diversification. The Countryside Access and Activities Network is working on a number of ongoing projects to develop recreation on private land. A number of landowners would be interested in increasing the amount of forested area on those lands. I imagine that the woodland grants system that Forest Service provides, for example, would be a big incentive. A combination of that grant and grants for increasing opportunities for recreation through trail development, for instance, would work well to develop not only the forested areas but outdoor recreation opportunities.

787. Mr News: A lot depends on how forests are perceived. We have some fantastic, expansive forests, such as Tollymore, but a forested area does not have to be so expansive. It can be a much smaller area. We are also looking at green lungs in urban areas, but that falls within the ambit of the Planning Service. Within the strategy for sport, we would like to see the implementation of the six-acre standard. It is about playing pitches and more formal recreation spaces, but it is also about open, green, forested areas in urban areas as well as in rural areas. It is, therefore, also about the implementation of policy planning statements.

788. Dr W McCrea: You talked about the advantages of forests for recreation, health and so on. Do you see a possible conflict of interest in Forest Service competing with private business in those areas? There are quite a number of private businesses in the fields of health, well-being and recreation. What parameters should be laid down in the use of public areas that may be in competition with private business?

789. Mr News: I mentioned Dalby Forest in North Yorkshire, which I had the fortune to visit in the last few months. It is a prime example of publicly owned, Forestry Commission land that is subject to a productive public-private partnership approach. The land is leased out to a number of different private sector providers. There are log cabins that people pay to spend expensive weekends in. There are trails, which provide opportunities for local walking shops, outdoor-pursuit shops and bike shops. There is also a cafe that is run by someone from the local village. That is an example of private enterprise working with the public sector. It is about ensuring that both partners work to their strengths, rather than the public sector trying to behave as a private enterprise. Equally, it is not about transferring ownership of a valuable public estate into private hands.

790. Mr Harkness: There are two aspects to that, the first of which is casual use for personal enjoyment. I cannot see much of a conflict where people want to enjoy a piece of forest ground on their bike or horse. However, there is also the more commercial aspect, in which people want to join a group of like-minded individuals to enjoy an activity. The opportunity for partnership with the private sector is non-challenging to the private sector. The forest environment creates opportunities, and there are already examples in Northern Ireland. For example, Forest Service has a commercial arrangement with a high-ropes provider and a countryside recreation provider in the Newcastle/Castlewellan area.

791. Dr W McCrea: One last question —

792. The Deputy Chairperson: Very quickly.

793. Dr W McCrea: The Deputy Chairperson mentioned sporting activity, and there are all these other things that you see going on in forests. Does the Department own the sporting rights across all the forests? If not, how do we create a balance with the other activities?

794. Mr McClure: I assume that by sporting rights, you mean shooting rights. The Department may not have those rights, but surely, as the landowner, it has a duty of care to inform users of that land of what is going on there.

795. Dr W McCrea: There is no point in having the rights if they cannot be used. If you have rights that you wish to exercise —

796. Mr McClure: Presumably responsibly. I imagine that the people who hold the sporting, or shooting, rights act responsibly. There needs to be a system that facilitates a flow of information between interested parties.

797. The Deputy Chairperson: I want the remaining questions and answers to be concise, because time is moving on.

798. Mr Doherty: Thank you for your submission. Dr McCrea has largely covered my first question.

799. The Deputy Chairperson: I knew that you were working in co-operation.

800. Mr Doherty: I have been saying that for some time; right, Jim?

801. Mr Shannon: I think so.

802. Mr Doherty: When you talked about the legal right of access, were you referring to public land?

803. Mr McClure: Yes; I was referring purely to public land.

804. Mr Doherty: Will you elaborate on the Active Woodlands scheme, which is run by Forestry Commission Scotland? Will you also elaborate on your point about the statutory right to recreation and access?

805. Mr McClure: Forestry Commission Scotland set up the Active Woods scheme because it sees it as its duty to provide opportunities for recreation, and it has set up activities in forests. It established mountain bike trails and walkways, and play areas for children. It has been very innovative — one of the things that is has done is create walking routes for parents and aligned routes on which children can go through tunnels, climb over logs and swing on ropes. The purpose of those schemes is to attract a range of people into forests who do not normally participate.

806. You will have to remind me what your second point was.

807. Mr Doherty: I asked about the statutory right to recreation as well as access.

808. Mr McClure: We were thinking about things like family cycling and horse riding; things that encourage responsible and sustainable recreation but do not have a major impact on the land or on operations in the forests.

809. Mr Harkness: Our interpretation of the current draft of the Bill is that only pedestrians have rights of access. That right does not exist for people on horseback or on a bicycle.

810. Mr Doherty: It does not exist?

811. Mr Harkness: That is our interpretation of the current draft of the Bill.

812. Mr Savage: You have outlined what you would like to see in the Bill. I know that Sport Northern Ireland has worked closely with the Forest Service. Can Sport Northern Ireland come together with the Forest Service in order to bring recreational facilities into line with what is happening in the rest of the UK and other places?

813. Mr News: Absolutely. In the draft strategy for sport and physical recreation, we make the point that Tollymore Forest Park will be a world-class, iconic national outdoor centre. More than that, however, Northern Ireland has one of the richest and most diverse natural tapestries — that is the phrase that we use in the strategy — given the proximity of the Mournes to the north coast and the Fermanagh lakelands. None of those places are much more than 60 minutes’ drive time from one another. There is an expanse of forest estate that is spread across Northern Ireland, notwithstanding the fact that we have one of the lowest levels of wooded area. People in Northern Ireland live within a few miles of a forest area of some description, whether it is a major forest or a small wooded area. Rural communities and Forest Service are key partners in delivering on the targets and objectives of the strategy for sport and physical recreation.

814. Now that the draft strategy has been approved, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and Sport Northern Ireland will look to its implementation, part of which will be to strengthen existing partnership arrangements and create new ones. Those partnerships extend to the Forest Service and to other organisations, such as the Mourne Heritage Trust, the Causeway Coast and Glens Heritage Trust, district councils throughout Northern Ireland, and the wider community and voluntary sector. The short answer is yes.

815. Mr Savage: I was glad to hear you say that public liability would be shared with regard to access to land. That is important.

816. The Deputy Chairperson: Especially to landowners, George.

817. Mr Savage: It has been a thorn in the side of landowners. I declare an interest, Deputy Chairperson.

818. Mr W Clarke: I joined the visit to Dalby Forest, which was valuable and a good example of good practice and people working together. We went because of the Tollymore master plan, and particularly the mountain biking and the Go Ape project. That is what we want to have in the Bill with regard to recreation and well-being.

819. Most of the issues have been touched on. Access is a big issue, even in relation to bringing mountain biking to Rostrevor and Tollymore. Forest Service could not get its head around that; it took a great deal of time to do that. What weaknesses do you still see in regards to that partnership working? I know that it is probably difficult for you to go on the public record because you are working in partnership and you do not want to start betraying confidences. I am just dealing with the mountain biking aspect because pulling together all of the partners was very difficult. At times, Tourist Board money could have been lost. What are your frustrations in that regard?

820. Mr Harkness: We have had valuable working relationships with Forest Service, and we would like those to continue, grow and develop, and become more meaningful in relation to opportunities for physical recreation. The legal constraints that we perceive to exist on the Forest Service mean that it does not have the freedom to work, spend and open up as we would like it to in order to develop opportunities. It sees its role as different from what we would like to see. This Bill is the opportunity to change that for the future, so that it is clearly defined that there is a role for the forest estate in Northern Ireland to deliver for the health and well-being of the population. Getting that right creates the foundation on which Sport Northern Ireland and Forest Service can work more in partnership to deliver recreational opportunities.

821. Mr W Clarke: That is why it is important to get it right.

822. Mr McClure: We work closely with Forest Service on its recreation strategy. I was on the steering group. One of the issues that continually came up was that there was no duty on Forest Service to do this. That was one of the difficulties that it stated, which is why we believe very strongly that this Bill has the opportunity to place a duty on Forest Service. My understanding is that Forest Service would welcome that because it would start to give it a remit for doing the things that it is doing.

823. Mr Harkness: It perceives itself to be constrained currently in what it is empowered to do.

824. Mr W Clarke: I have two other points.

825. The Deputy Chairperson: Please ask precise questions, because we are moving on. I have given you some flexibility, although it is fine if you have a couple of questions.

826. Mr W Clarke: I am not going to argue with you. You gave others a lot more flexibility than you gave me.

827. Dr McCrea touched on the issues of your organisation giving resources towards access, and the issues of access, infrastructure, maintaining access and combating erosion. Do you see your organisation putting money into the pot in that regard?

828. Mr Harkness: From time to time, we have capital moneys. As many of you know, we also run capital investment programmes. Those tend to be for fixed projects. We do not tend to provide ongoing revenue funding for evermore, because our budgets would be consumed if that were the case. We tend to challenge projects with an opportunity to display their capital need at the outset, and potentially a short-term revenue need, but display their ability to be sustainable into the future. There are lots of models around which countryside projects, as well as pitch-based or indoor-based sports, can develop sustainability in relation to their financial needs.

829. Mr News: Our investments in countryside recreation tend to be strategic, so they go towards helping governing bodies to build capacity, identifying where the access needs are most acute, and working with organisations like the Countryside Recreation Network in Northern Ireland and the Countryside Access and Activities Network. Mr Clarke made a reference to Tourist Board moneys for trail development; those moneys were secured as a result of investments that we made to secure it. That is how we see our investment having maximum leverage.

830. Mr Shannon: I will be straight to the point, because I am very mindful of what has been said. The access issues have been touched on by everyone, so I will not go into those again. I have met you all before on numerous occasions through the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure. It is all about the management of Forest Service land. Do you accept that there are many bodies that have demand upon Forest Service land, and, therefore, that that land can only be managed in co-operation with all of those bodies? Do you see a management plan for the Forest Service land overall?

831. Mr McClure: Absolutely. Forest Service has developed a strategy for recreation, and as part of that strategy there will need to be more specific management plans, partly for specific forests, but also an overarching management plan for managing recreation and harvesting activities, for example.

832. Mr Shannon: The reason I asked the question is that the Department of Agriculture only controls sporting rights on 50% of its land; there is obviously 50% that it does not control. With that being the case, do you accept that that 50% that is used for sporting activity — shooting activities in particular — cannot be used for leisurely walks through the forest, or mountain biking, for instance? Do you accept that?

833. Mr McClure: Under the Bill, there will be a statutory right of pedestrian activity, and that will have to be managed if that comes into force. Therefore, other activities could be managed in the same manner. They could be managed through local by-laws, information sessions, noticeboards, displays and that sort of thing.

834. Mr Shannon: The thrust of what you are saying is that whatever is done on Forest Service land has to be done in a managed way, with the co-operation of all the bodies and the understanding of previous usage of the land.

835. Mr McClure: And people’s needs.

836. Mr Shannon: People’s needs as well. I think one of you earlier mentioned the issue of insurance cover, and said that that was down to the individual or to the landowner. I am conscious of Tollymore, where mountain biking is one of the sporting activities that take place there. I have a neighbour who is involved in that sport who fell in Tollymore Forest Park and was quite seriously injured. He has not worked for the year and a half since. Will you clarify the position on insurance cover?

837. Mr Harkness: I am an exponent of the countryside sports, including mountain biking, and I have been involved in court cases where people have been injured in countryside activities. It is a sport with a degree of risk. One never goes mountain biking without the prospect of falling off, and one never falls off without the prospect of an injury. The equipment is designed to be used on rough terrain, so it would be difficult to prove in court that the person who owns the terrain would be to blame if someone fell off because the terrain was rough. The participant goes into the sport. It is termed an adventure sport, and adventure implies risk. Judging by the court cases that I have seen operating, there is a degree of responsibility and liability on the individual who makes the decision to participate in a risky activity.

838. The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. It is much appreciated.

839. Mr Harkness: Thank you.

840. The Deputy Chairperson: We will now move on to the second witness session with Premier Woodlands. I invite John Hetherington to come forward. You are very welcome. It is over to you to make a short presentation and leave yourself available for questions.

841. Mr John Hetherington (Premier Woodlands Ltd): Thank you very much for this opportunity. I am seriously struggling to understand the purpose of the proposed legislation. I have 30 years’ experience in forestry, and worked with the Forest Service a long time ago. I struggle to understand what some of the clauses of the legislation are for. If I understand the policy going forward for the Forest Service, it is to double the area of woodland cover in Northern Ireland. I have worked in the industry for 30 years, and, in my simple opinion, sadly, the Bill will not achieve those aims.

842. I have already sent a submission to the Committee, so I will comment briefly now on the four parts of the Forestry Bill. There is little evidence to suggest that a reasonable case has been made for handing the Forest Service the extreme powers that it is asking for.

843. Part 1 of the Bill deals with the functions of the Department. We understand that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s policy is to double woodland cover in Northern Ireland, yet the Bill simply talks about promoting forestry. It does not mention increasing woodland cover. That is hugely significant. Surely one follows on from the other?

844. The Forestry Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 limits the Forest Service to working solely within the forestry remit. However, the Bill will allow the Forest Service to operate as a private company that can do anything that it wants to. It will give the service a huge range of powers. Under clause 7, which deals with incidental powers, the Department would be allowed to undertake anything that it sees fit to. That is a very wide-ranging power.

845. The state Forest Service has a huge base to work from, given that it owns 70% of all woodland in Northern Ireland. By contrast, the private sector in Northern Ireland is very small. The Bill encourages that distinction even further. It puts the private sector in a very unfair position. In my commentary, I will look at balance, fairness and evidence. In my opinion, the balance in the Bill is wrong. The Bill is not fair to the small private sector.

846. Where is the evidence that some of the powers in the Bill are required? For example, the Bill gives the Department the power of compulsory acquisition of land to secure access for either releasing timber reserves or for wind farm expansion. The private sector does not have the ability to do that. One would have to ask why land was purchased in the first place if there was not adequate access to it, considering that the Bill says that the land has to be used for forestry. That is fairly simple language. Why was that land purchased 40 or 50 years ago when there was not adequate access to it? That seems odd.

847. Part 2 of the Bill is entitled ‘Protection of Forest Trees from Damage’. There is some indication that the Forest Service owns only 50% of the shooting rights within its own estate, although I do not think that anyone knows for sure. I do not think that anyone has ever worked it out. It is fairly significant, anyhow. Given that the Forest Service has only three wildlife wardens to undertake control of animal species, how can the service say that, if the expansion of woodland cover happens and deer are perceived to be a huge threat, it requires authority to go on to third-party lands? Does it have the staff to do that? The simple answer is no. Why, therefore, should Crown exemption be extended to privately owned land? There seems to be little logic to that.

848. I am also involved in the British Deer Society. Although we all recognise that deer have to be managed, there is no evidence that they are causing a huge problem. There is merely a perception that they might create a problem. I may be wrong, but my simple understanding of legislation is that it is put in place only when a need for it has been demonstrated, not as part of a wish list. I shall move on quickly. I could say lots of other things, but I am watching the clock, and I want to give everyone a fair chance.

849. With respect to part 3, ‘Felling of Trees’, we asked the Forest Service why it feels that it ought to be exempt from the felling-licence system. It indicated that there is no need for the felling-licence system to apply to it because all its woodland is sustainably managed to the UK woodland assurance standard. However, the private sector also manages woodland to the same standard. Hopefully, we are being treated the same, yet we are expected to pay for felling licences, assuming that the Forest Service approves our felling and management plans, for which it still has not issued detailed requirements. I am very familiar with forest management plans in Scotland, which are huge documents that cost a lot of money. Thankfully, they are grant aided there, but there is no mention of grant aid here. All those things discourage people from planting more trees. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the policy is to increase woodland cover. We are constantly and negatively knocking that aim.

850. Finally, with respect to part 4, ‘Miscellaneous and Supplementary’, there is huge concern that the public will be granted pedestrian access to the whole Forest Service estate. The Forest Service does not own the sporting rights to 58% of its land holdings. I manage sporting rights for certain owners within the Forest Service estate and, even though I have raised the matter in management meetings in which horse-riding licences were granted for certain forests, to date, there have been no discussions with the owners of sporting rights. The Forest Service is not complying with the UK woodland assurance standard, which states that all stakeholders should be consulted.

851. We control deer populations — at no expense to the Forest Service — to help to ensure that they do not cause damage. I hope that there are no horse riders about when we are shooting, because their horses will get scared. In such circumstances, who is liable? We should be working together and applying common sense, but that is not happening.

852. My company operates throughout the UK, including in Scotland, and Southern Ireland, and we welcome responsible public access. However, few members of the public who enter woods have any idea about responsible use. We get abuse when we ask them what they are doing. They leave litter behind and gates open, allowing livestock to get out. They do not control their dogs. Public access is a huge issue. That said, I still believe that all landowners should welcome responsible usage of their land. However, who will educate the public on that huge issue? There is no cultural history of responsible use of the countryside, and no one can assume that responsible usage will just happen. It will not just happen. People must be educated, and that takes rather a long time.

853. I hope that my comments have not been so brief that you will forget everything that I have said; I hope that the opposite will be the case. Having worked in forestry for 30 years, I know that it has been extremely difficult to encourage people to plant trees. It is a slow process, and we must keep working extremely hard at it. Evidence that the Forest Service can provide you with shows that, in the past 10 years, planting levels have reduced by between 50% and 60%.

854. My view is based on only 30 years of experience — I hope that other folk will have more experience. In my opinion, the Forestry Bill simply will not encourage people to plant; rather it will put more obstacles in their way. We in the private sector are more than happy to work with the Forest Service, if given the opportunity to do so. We are rarely given that opportunity. We want to work together, but the Forestry Bill keeps the balance of power firmly with the Department. Crown exemption has increased vastly. I thought that almost all Departments were getting rid of Crown exemption, but that is not the case with this Bill.

855. The evidence is that fewer acres and hectares have been planted. How will the doubling of woodland cover in Northern Ireland ever be achieved in the next 40 to 50 years? Sadly, the Bill will not help to achieve that goal. Every time we ask where the evidence is in the various areas of concern, we find that there is none. I asked for the evidence that there are issues around timber lorry access, but none is available. Having said that, I accept that in certain areas, particularly in Fermanagh and Tyrone, the rights of access into small areas of land that were subsequently planted with trees are not fit for road construction for timber lorries. I can accept that, but the Bill widens the powers to include wind farms and any other use that the Department may specify.

856. The private sector wants to help the Committee and the Forest Service to achieve the doubling of woodland in Northern Ireland, which we all want. Sadly, that will not happen as a result of the Forestry Bill.

857. The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you, John, for outlining your depressing position on the Bill. You mentioned the practical outworkings of access rights to forestry. I assume that the Bill could include a measure on zoning, particularly in areas where there are shooting rights. Public access cannot apply in such areas. You will have heard us raise that issue with Sport Northern Ireland. You are saying that that organisation’s theory on the matter does not really work because people will not put up signs to say that they are shooting.

858. Mr Hetherington: I will answer your question in a slightly different way. To my mind, there is virtually no logic in the Forest Service trying to run itself as a company and producing commercial timber. In almost all other regions of Ireland and GB, the state forest organisation has split into a commercial side, which, in some instances, has been sold off, and public recreation forest areas.

859. It is common sense that the Forest Service does not own all the sporting, shooting or fishing rights in Northern Ireland, and it is common sense to have zones for use for horse-riding, walking and so on. It is sensible and natural for consultation to take place with all interest groups. That ought to happen already under the UK woodland assurance standard. I am not aware that it has ever happened, but it makes sense. Forests have multiple uses, of which shooting is one.

860. I have not reached a conclusion on whether forests should use signage to advertise the fact that shooting is taking place. Unfortunately, as has happened across the water, the anti-shooting organisations will target individuals who undertake shooting. I am unsure whether it is a good idea to highlight that. Even during the foot-and-mouth outbreak, the public continued to use public areas and ignored signs that told them to stay away. I can give only my thoughts on the matter. Woodland has many uses, including shooting.

861. The Deputy Chairperson: You mentioned the management plan. Is it possible to apply for a felling licence without having to produce a complicated management plan? I am thinking about how to simplify the matter, because people do not want to produce costly management plans.

862. Mr Hetherington: In England, Scotland and Wales, people apply for felling licences, and there are some discussions about what they will replant with. However, there is no requirement for a management plan to be in place before the felling-licence application is considered. I do not understand why a management plan should be a condition of a felling-licence application.

863. The Deputy Chairperson: We will now take questions from members, and I ask members to be as brief as possible.

864. Dr W McCrea: With the greatest of respect, Deputy Chairperson, I did not find Mr Hetherington’s position depressing; it represents a dose of realism rather than lights in one’s eyes. I am concerned. We are preparing a Bill that has important implications for the future, yet we have been told that, in order to get the Bill right, consultation should have taken place with various agencies before anything was put on paper. We should ask the Department why there has not been proper consultation.

865. Will the Bill give the Department the right to authorise shooting rights on private land even though it has no rights on that land?

866. Mr Hetherington: Yes.

867. Dr W McCrea: They are taking the rights. Such a proposal will extend the Department’s power dramatically.

868. Mr Hetherington: That is the case if the Department perceives there to be a risk to a state-owned or privately owned planted area.

869. Dr W McCrea: Therefore, it is about the Department’s perception of the situation. Does the Department make the judgement call without consultation?

870. Mr Hetherington: It does not say that. It simply says that in order to protect individuals who undertake deer control, be they state employees or private contractors, they should be exempt from the sections of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, or any other sections, that would leave them open to prosecution.

871. Dr W McCrea: I take the Chairperson’s direction that we should be brief. However, we will have to return to the issue. A couple of questions will not get to the bottom of it. It is very worrying.

872. The Deputy Chairperson: I assume that we will come to that when we carry out our line-by-line scrutiny with the Department.

873. Dr W McCrea: Here is the problem: we will have departmental officials before us at that point, but we will not have the likes of John Hetherington before us to challenge what the officials say. We will have the departmental official giving his or her gobbledegook or whatever he or she wants to tell us. However, in the past, we have brought departmental officials and those who hold a very different view face to face across the table. We need to get to the bottom of this matter now, because once a Bill is passed, that is it; everyone will have to stick to it rigidly.

874. The Deputy Chairperson: Sorry to interrupt, but I must ask that all mobiles be switched off, please.

875. Dr McCrea, when we come to the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, we will put to departmental officials any questions that the various organisations with an interest in the Bill have asked. We will then go back to those organisations and ask them for an assessment of the Department’s answers.

876. The Committee Clerk: Following a meeting, the Committee support team normally forwards the comments made by the various witnesses to the Department for responses on specific questions. We will then provide Members with an updated master copy of the clauses, which will show the various comments from the Department.

877. Dr W McCrea: The general duty in the Bill is to promote forestry. Do you believe that a Bill that provides for that general duty will produce the goods?

878. Mr Hetherington: No.

879. Mr W Clarke: Thank you for your presentation. We spoke about landlocked forests, and there are a number of them. The Department said that it needed powers of compulsory purchase to buy the verges in order to widen the roads for access purposes. I understand your point: you asked why we have the forests there in the first place. However, if we want to harvest and replant, we may need a power of compulsory purchase. Do you see any alternative to it?

880. Do you wish to see a master plan for publicly owned forests that would allow all the stakeholders to come together and manage the forest? Do we need to say that in the Bill?

881. Mr Hetherington: You asked about access to forests, and I can give an example from personal experience. Six months ago, I purchased a woodland in Scotland that has some scattered forestry blocks. There is no access to one of those blocks. I will have to go to see the neighbouring farmer and negotiate with him. It comes down to what is fair and reasonable and what is for the public good. I see instances where it is difficult to argue against giving the Department powers of compulsory purchase for access to release timber reserve. However, that is not what it says in the Bill. The Department uses access to timber reserve as only one example. My point is that the powers extended to the Department need to be seriously narrowed down.

882. I have worked for the Forest Service. It has a dominant position in Northern Ireland, and my view — others will have their view — is that there has been little consultation with the private sector historically. The Bill continues along that vein. Under the UK woodland assurance standard, there should be more consultation with the stakeholders of specific forests. However, I readily recognise that having huge committees and meetings would mean that nothing would get done.

883. Forests will be used for many more things, and the concern is always the responsible use of woodland. No one has an issue with that, but the public does not understand what responsible use is. That is the nub of the problem. Sadly, I have experienced that regularly. Woodlands have been vandalised and set on fire. We in the private sector have to put up with that. The state Forest Service has a dominant position. The private sector wants a level playing field, yet it has never had one. The Bill simply increases the Department’s power.

884. Mr Shannon: I declare an interest, because I bought some trees from your organisation, which I planted on my farm. I have two issues: shooting rights, which Dr McCrea touched on, and pedestrian access, which Willie Clarke touched on. Do you think that Forest Service land can be managed in such a way as to ensure that all or most sporting activities can take place on separate blocks of land? Is that the way you see it?

885. Mr Hetherington: When I worked for the state Forest Service, I was the forest manager at Tollymore forest park and I managed the deer in that area. I successfully managed the deer without creating any problems in the year that I worked there. I had to recognise that the public were in the forest from quite early in the morning until after dark, so I had to be out at first light and had roughly one hour in which to control the deer. I saw the negative press reaction when Randalstown forest was closed for deer control. If lessons are to be learned from Randalstown forest, or more recently, Seskinore forest, the media and the public must be educated that deer control or culling has to happen for the well-being of the forest.

886. Zoning could work in large forests, but at Tollymore I had to shoot some deer at campsites. I am currently employed to control deer on some golf courses, and the course must be closed when I am doing so. Deer control could be likened to the felling of trees; both have the potential to hurt someone. If a tree falls on you, it will kill you. If someone shoots you, it will kill you. Therefore, we must educate the public that certain sections of the forest have to be closed off at certain times of the year. People cannot be stopped from walking in the forests if they are determined to do so. However, as wild animals, deer will sense if a member of the public is walking about. The risk is small, but it can be minimised by managing it.

887. Mr Shannon: The Minister announced a fortnight ago that the grant for planting hardwood trees will be increased. Will you be glad to see that in order to encourage the planting of hardwood trees?

888. Mr Hetherington: Yes, absolutely, although it is not specifically for hardwoods; it is for conifers as well. However, yet again, the problem will be the delivery. Where is the bottleneck? The grant aid is one of the bottlenecks, so the increase of 30% is welcome. However, one of the bottlenecks is caused by people having to create a farm business and by the complete failure of the Forest Service to agree in Brussels the definitions of “farmers" and “non-farmers" for the annual payment part of the forest grant. We asked the question, and recently there was an announcement recently from one of the directors of Forest Service that it had completely failed to convince Brussels to change the wording of those definitions. We are only three years into the five-year plan, and the Forest Service has failed.

889. The Deputy Chairperson: Was that announcement made publicly, or was it only made to your organisation?

890. Mr Hetherington: We asked the question and gave the Department the opportunity to respond through a newspaper article. The article was published approximately four weeks ago. In the article, the Forest Service admitted that, both formally and informally, it had failed to make any headway and that it was back to square one.

891. The Deputy Chairperson: That is a crucial element in the immediate future of forestry development.

892. Mr Savage: Sorry I missed the first part of your presentation. I congratulate you on the effort that you have made in your response to the Forestry Bill.

893. You said that you were looking for a level playing field. I speak as a farmer who has been involved with the land for a long time; we have never had a level playing field. Anyone who gets involved with any of the Departments has to wait a long time before they get the same perks as the Departments have.

894. You said that the last forestry Bill was passed 50 years ago. How often do you think that there should be a new forestry Bill to bring in people like yourselves? Listening to you and the people before you, I have learnt a lot about things that need to be done but are not being done. The Committee will be asked to make big decisions on the way forward for forestry. You have covered quite a lot, but what are the most important things that the Committee should be doing?

895. Mr Hetherington: That is a big question. Between 10 and 15 years ago, an international consultancy company, Jaakko Pöyry Consulting, produced a report for the Forest Service which has never been released in public. At the pre-report meeting, there was a graph on international costs of forest management. Which of the countries that it looked at was top of the tree in its cost for forest management? The Forest Service in Northern Ireland. Why should taxpayers fund the inefficient Forest Service? Why not sell off the commercial woodland and concentrate on providing public facilities in a much smaller estate?

896. The Forestry Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 was supposed to be amended when the review started in 2000. That has been going on for nine years now. Halfway through the process of amending the 1953 Act, the Department decided to start again, because it thought that the old Act was past its sell-by date and should be scrapped. I disagree with that.

897. Modern life is moving much more quickly than it was 50 years ago. Consider the analogy of a crop of commercial conifer trees: 50 years ago the standard rotation was 50 years, whereas it is now 30 years. Things are moving all the time. We should be seriously looking at the legislation that governs forestry every 20 to 25 years.

898. European legislation has also come in, but very few folk understand it. We cannot change land use without permission; that has been on the statute books since 2000. Is there any need to have felling licences given that 70% of the woodland estate is state owned and that the people who plant trees on private woodland are very committed foresters? The industry is extremely well regulated, because it must follow Forest Service’s grant-aid guidelines.

899. I fully recognise that felling licences are not an issue per se, but they will create yet another raft of regulation that will act as a further discouragement to foresters. Surely we should be focusing on encouraging the expansion of woodland, not discouraging it. I recognise that other concerned groups will want the felling licences included in the legislation. It is a hard one to call.

900. I have worked in the private sector for 23 years and have made a living from promoting the expansion of woodland in Northern Ireland. However, the sad reality is that we could not make a living from establishing new woodland in Northern Ireland 15 years ago. Instead, we had to start operating in Southern Ireland and Scotland. Twenty years ago, almost 1,000 hectares of new woodland was created in Northern Ireland. Ten years ago, approximately 650 hectares of new woodland was created. What happened last year? Only 260 hectares of new woodland was created. There has been a long-term decline in new woodland creation. How do people think that the Forestry Bill will change that? I have been trying to make a living from woodland establishment, which is darn hard work, and the Bill does not encourage that.

901. The Deputy Chairperson: I think that you are saying that Forest Service should get rid of commercial forestry — leave that to the private industry — and keep woodland for recreational use.

902. Mr Irwin: You raised a number of concerns about the Bill. Members of the Committee share those concerns, one of which is the compulsory acquisition of land. You said that your company bought woodland in Scotland and that it would have to negotiate access with the landowner. Is it possible to put something in place whereby there could be compulsory temporary access instead of the acquisition of land? That would be more realistic in that type of situation.

903. Mr Hetherington: We did that six months ago. Network Rail in Scotland used our woodland to upgrade an old railway track. It has the compulsory power to do that, but after six months it had to hand the land back to us in the same state that it got it.

904. Mr Irwin: That is a completely different situation from compulsory acquisition.

905. Mr Hetherington: Yes.

906. The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you very much for that interesting presentation. Obviously, we will be going back to the Department with a number of issues.

(The Chairperson [Mr Paisley Jnr] in the Chair)

907. The Chairperson (Mr Paisley Jnr): Thank you, Tom.

908. The next item on the agenda is a presentation by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC). With us is Roger Pollen, the country director of the BASC. You are very welcome, Roger.

909. Mr Roger Pollen (British Association for Shooting and Conservation): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have asked John to sit with me today. He is a member of the Northern Ireland advisory committee for BASC and there may be a couple of points where we overlap and where it would be useful to bring in his expertise.

910. Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence in the course of the Committee Stage of the Bill. It is a little bit like being the last person to speak at a wedding; everybody has come out with all the good jokes and interesting statistics and I am trying to hoover up the bits at the end after everyone has moved on. I have given members an advance copy of my notes and I will expand on them slightly to put things in context. I am conscious of the time, so I will try to do that fairly quickly. I will set the scene and then we can take the discussion from there.

911. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation is the UK’s largest representative body for sporting shooting, with a membership of around 130,000 people. I am the BASC’s director for Northern Ireland.

912. We have significant reservations about the Bill. It appears to have evolved through at least two consultations, and Dr McCrea mentioned the consultation issue. The first of those consultations, as far as I am aware, was ‘Options for Forestry’ in 2005, and the second was a strategy to develop the recreational and social use of Forest Service forests in 2009. That consultation closed in February. I suggest that those consultations dipped a toe in the water, listened to where the objections were coming from and perhaps made a few amendments. However, they do not seem to have altered the course of Forest Service’s thinking. That might, in some ways, explain why the Bill, having been out to consultation, has come forward in the form that it has.

913. BASC responded to both consultations, and, although there were some elements in the Bill to commend, there was a clear underlying thrust to set a very high bid for powers that would allow for almost unfettered expansion of state-owned forestry. For example, powers were sought to allow for road building and for compulsory purchase of land and sporting rights, and there were proposed new requirements for woodland owners to abide by regulations that would not be applied to Forest Service itself. BASC argued its case very strongly in those initial consultations, but, although we welcome the fact that powers for compulsory purchase of sporting rights are not sought in the Bill, comments by senior Forest Service staff earlier this summer that they have dropped the proposals “for the time being" leave concerns.

914. It is clear that the main thrust is still to acquire new powers for Forest Service. The Bill does not appear to give due consideration to the other options that exist for forestry in Northern Ireland, either now or in the future. That is unfortunate for the future of forestry and for the wider environment. To echo what Mr Hetherington said, we believe that many of the proposed new powers are largely unnecessary, because the two main pillars of regulation already exist, and offer great scope for proper forest management, together with numerous other minor powers and regulations that lend support.

915. Other issues raised in the Bill are simply unacceptable to BASC and its membership, specifically in the area of the proposed powers to create statutory rights for Forest Service staff to go onto private land adjacent to all forestry — not simply that belonging to Forest Service, but all forestry — to pursue deer and other species of quarry. That is a power that was not available in the 1953 Act, under which the destruction of wild animals was allowed, but not the destruction of deer.

916. It is worth pausing to examine the implications of this. Those powers of access would convey many of the effects of compulsory purchase without actual recourse to purchase. For example, clause 8 has a vague description of a wild animal as any animal that is:

“living wild and is likely to damage trees".

917. Effectively, that would allow Forest Service to usurp traditional sporting rights in areas where it is the occupier but the rights are reserved.

918. What precedent is there for a farmer, in this case growing a crop of trees, to call in government staff to control predators on a neighbour’s ground, and not only get no bill for that, but have the bill for the government providing that service given to the neighbour? That is unprecedented in agriculture, yet that is exactly what the Bill proposes.

919. Powers are also sought on felling licences and management plans, from which the Forest Service would be exempt. That is unhelpful for land management, as well as shooting and conservation management. It is an abuse of power and creates unnecessary bureaucracy. Northern Ireland is notable in Europe for the extent of forestry in public ownership. Many of the measures proposed in the Bill seem designed to preserve that imbalance rather than correct it. The powers that are sought are without check or balance, which is a cause for grave concern.

920. I want to highlight about half a dozen key points in the Bill. The first is that the Forest Service wants powers for the compulsory purchase of land that is of strategic importance. Many private landowners might wish to have similar powers for laudable purposes, but they will never get them. Is it right that the state should be able to have such supremacy? The example cited in the Bill’s explanatory and financial memorandum is that of gaining access to landlocked public forestry. Is the main or only concern that Forest Service can address that by seeking powers of compulsory purchase, rather than compulsory temporary access?

921. Forest Service has the respectable ambition of wanting to double forest cover in Northern Ireland. However, was that agreed after consultation, engagement and dialogue with the other landowners in the Province? The population of the world is predicted to expand by nearly 50% over the next 40 years. That is another three billion people. Has consideration been given to the effects of the loss of productive agricultural capacity that the removal of 6% of the land mass of Northern Ireland from production would deliver, or the impact on annual revenues to the country as opposed to long-term capital growth?

922. The Committee may wonder why we are posing a question that would potentially frustrate the establishment of more woodland. We are simply highlighting the fact that change of land use on such a large scale would undoubtedly have significant impacts on many aspects of our sport. Therefore, we are keen to ensure that any such change is carefully planned, considered and developed in full knowledge of all its impacts, and in consultation with all who may be affected. Forestry practice over the past 50 years is hardly hailed as having stood the test of time and taken us in an ideal direction. When making legislation, therefore, we must make sure than any assumptions are properly challenged.

923. I want to flesh out the issue of allowing forest rangers to go onto private land adjacent to all forestry. Apparently, Forest Service staff, and their other arrangements, cannot control the deer sufficiently in their own forestry. Much worse, the number of foxes there is widely acknowledged as being at plague levels, with massive negative impacts on many of the Northern Ireland biodiversity action plan targets for species such as red grouse, curlew and Irish hare.

924. In the Bill, Forest Service has an ambition to double to 12% the area covered by forest, with the prospect of government staff being empowered to go onto adjacent land for a distance of up to half a kilometre. That would mean armed rangers covering an enormous proportion of Northern Ireland, possibly up to a quarter of the entire Province. The case for going onto private land is simply not made. It is against everything that land ownership is about, and it has public safety implications as well as legal implications, including potential armed trespass. How many of your constituents would be happy that you are considering, or being asked to move, legislation that would allow people to come onto their land with no ability to resist that request, armed with full bore rifles to control animals on that land, and then charge you for having done so? I would not have thought that that would be popular with any sector of the rural population.

925. Another bizarre aspect of the Bill is that Forest Service wants its staff to be exempt from the provisions of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, or its successor legislation, and to be exempt from the game Acts so as to be able to shoot deer, day or night, 365 days a year, without legal control on appropriate calibres or weights of bullet. That proposal has appalling implications for deer welfare, principally orphan fawns and wounding.

926. The proposals seek exemption from wildlife legislation that has been developed through wide consultation and an understanding of deer ecology. There is no justification for such a sweeping exemption for one small group of government employees from the laws that govern the rest of the population. Indeed, the Department of the Environment is currently proposing, in the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill, to scrap the right to Crown immunity for its staff. It is bizarre in the extreme, therefore, that the Department of Agriculture is actively seeking to introduce Crown immunity, which it does not currently enjoy. Another effect of such Crown immunity could be the ability to shoot badgers, red squirrels or other protected animals if circumstances demanded, again with no check or balance.

927. Dr McCrea’s suggested a private session where Forest Service would come in and give evidence. It is easy to say “that would not happen, our management controls would not allow it." However, we are making legislation that might last for half a century. Someone may say that ·243 calibre rifle bullets are too expensive and that we will just use ·222 which are a tenth of the price. That would be an economic decision, but the wounding issues for deer would be immense. There would be no check or balance to say that that would not happen, because Forest Service would have the powers taken unto itself through this legislation to make that ruling. At that point, it would be beyond challenge.

928. We suggest that the exemption would give Forest Service staff the power to act in grossly unacceptable ways, yet be immune from any form of control. The creation of such a lack of independent oversight would be a travesty and is entirely unacceptable. To go back to John Hetherington’s point, no case has been made for it. I do not believe that any case could be made to sustain this argument of being exempt from the laws that affect everyone else. Interestingly, we are also advised that the Department of the Environment has not been officially consulted on the proposal for rangers to be exempt from its legislation. That ought to raise some interesting questions.

929. The Forest Service wants to be able to cull deer that might cause damage, not just those that are actively causing damage. We believe that that is entirely unacceptable as it is so subjective. All deer might cause damage. This would put the Forest Service beyond control and completely in charge of policies that could potentially see the eradication of the majority of the deer population without check or balance. It is also an opportunity to deprive sporting-rights owners without discussion, agreement or compensation.

930. It is worth highlighting a piece of legislation that is going through the Department of the Environment (DOE) at the moment. That Department has introduced checks and balances in its new draft legislation on deer. It has made provision for deer culling out of season and at night, subject to application for a licence. Before granting a licence the Department will be required to be satisfied about a number of matters in order to ensure that there is no other satisfactory solution and that the reasons for the application for licence are given due consideration. In the case of preventing damage to property — which presumably is the Forest Service’s interest — property on the land has to have been seriously damaged in the year preceding the licence application. It is not good enough to say that a deer might damage trees: there has to be a track record of deer having caused damage, and this is a proportionate response to it under licence. In other words, where deer might cause damage, there is a far higher requirement from the DOE than in this Bill. The DOE has got it right and has provided checks and balances.

931. The Forest Service wants to be able to recover the costs of such deer culling from the owners of adjacent private land. Forest Service currently accepts no responsibility for road traffic accidents caused by wild deer on the basis that they are wild. That is correct in law. It also accepts no responsibility for losses incurred by sheep farmers from foxes that inhabit their forestry and stray out onto farmland, yet it wants the reverse of this, in its own interest, to cull wild animals on private ground adjacent to any publicly or privately owned woodland, and it expects the private landowner or the occupier to pay.

932. Interestingly, there is no definition or clarity as to what is meant by “occupier". In the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, it is specified that the term “occupier" is not defined. That is absolutely germane to the issue. As an occupier of a piece of ground, I can lend a shotgun to someone who is on that piece of ground with me, but the 2004 Order does not define what an “occupier" is. Forest Service is creating a provision to charge an occupier for a service it carries out, but it does not define who that is. Who is the occupier? It is the person who has the conacre rights or the sporting rights, or the person who has hired it for putting on a game fair? Who is the occupier of the ground on which the Forest Service provides this supposed service? The provision lacks detail and is being driven from the wrong end.

933. It is also worth noticing the inconsistencies in the Bill. The treatment of animals is different to the treatment of invasive plants. With plants, the Forest Service has simply sought the right to control invasive species, which is probably not unreasonable, but with deer, it wants to have the right to control and to charge for undertaking that control. Why is there that disparity?

934. We have had conversations with Forest Service to try to get access for recreational deer stalking in the forest estate. The Forest Service realises the value of sporting shooting, but it consistently resists helping to unlock that value from stalking, unlike in Scotland, England or Wales. That is not only an opportunity lost, but a major restriction on legitimate sporting shooting. Taken in conjunction with some of the other powers sought in the Bill, and some that were proposed earlier but have now been discarded, BASC has strong reservations about the intentions of the Forest Service and the proposal to give it such massive powers with so few checks and balances.

935. I believe that that gives a flavour of the issues that cause us greatest concern in the Bill as it stands. In many ways, the issues that cause concern arise from the fact that the principal forest operator is also the regulator, not only for private growers but for itself. With a major percentage of the woodlands and forest in Northern Ireland in its ownership, the Forest Service is not only the largest player by a massive margin, but, through the provisions of the Bill, will have the power to decide how everyone else — commercial competitors, alternative users such as stalkers, and unrelated landowners — is regulated while being exempt itself.

936. The BASC, along with some other organisations such as the Countryside Alliance and Game Conservancy Trust, commissioned a report a couple of years ago from Public and Corporate Economic Consultants which examined the economic value of shooting to the UK economy and broke it down into the various constituent parts. It identified over £10 million worth of conservation work that is undertaken annually by the shooting community in Northern Ireland. That is a massive amount.

937. The report also identified over 2,100 jobs sustained in shooting, and over £45 million of value to the economy. It is a huge industry that is not formally recognised. It is of major benefit in helping the Government to meet its biodiversity targets, having that amount of voluntary input. Some of the provisions in the Bill, such as the requirement for felling licences for small trees on small pieces of ground, whether or not they have ever received public money to assist with their establishment, seem onerous and are likely to impose an unwelcome burden on a large number of people who contribute to the welfare of the countryside.

938. The more I have reflected, the more I feel that the process has started in the wrong place, and that the first action should be to divide the regulatory function, which affects all woodland operators whether public or private, from the delivery function. If that were to be done, or if it had been done, and the issue was about the regulation of forestry, I doubt that we would have had many issues of concern, if any. I genuinely doubt whether a regulator would seek the powers that are being sought here. Such a division of roles would have the effect of giving much greater confidence in the actions and motives of the Forest Service as a regulator. That would leave you free to privatise the forests and woodlands to release massive sums to the public purse and to rebalance the public/private operation of the woodland in the Province.

939. The Chairperson: Thank you. You made two points about the DOE exemption and consultation and the “occupier" definition. We will put those issues to the Department and its Bill team.

940. I was going to ask you what you would want to put in the Bill had you been given a blank sheet of paper. Your presentation makes it quite clear that there are a lot of things that you would like to take out of the Bill to make it work. I appreciate the way that you have presented your evidence today in order to clarify the points that you made in your written submission.

941. Mr Elliott: When the representatives from Sport NI were here, I asked whether they recognised shooting as a sport, and they said that they did not. Does that give you any concern?

942. Mr Pollen: I was interested in your question and their answer. I was also interested in the way that they repositioned afterwards when they felt that there was a different mood around the table. They have grant-aided some shooting sports, but they clearly draw a distinction between Olympic and target shooting, which they have grant-aided with around £86,000 over the past year or so, and recreational sporting shooting. I was surprised at that, given their objective of getting people out into the countryside.

943. The Chairperson: Do you think that they get it?

944. Mr Pollen: No, I was not convinced that they did. In fact, they are now on top of my list to call, to see if we can help them to get it. [Laughter.]

945. I am sorry, that was not meant to be as facetious as it sounded. I think that they are genuinely doing a great job in lots of sectors. They recognise sporting shooting for Olympic standards, but this is a massive area of recreational activity that they seem to be unaware of.

946. The Chairperson: Do they understand how much money this spins in the Scottish and borders economy on the mainland?

947. Mr Pollen: Interestingly, a quarter of all shooters in England, which is a massive number, go to Scotland for recreational shooting, whereas only 1% come to Northern Ireland. There is a one-way flow of money going out of Northern Ireland for shooting opportunities on mainland GB and none coming back this way. That seems to be a big opportunity missed. The Forest Service has been nimble in avoiding any opportunity to try and engage with it on that.

948. The BASC runs stalking schemes with the Forestry Commission in Scotland and England. We provide deer management in an area and a ranger to do the guiding, and we bring in lots of members to go deer stalking. That is done on behalf of the Forestry Commission to provide its deer management and culling targets and to provide recreational opportunities for our members. One of the local schemes in England runs right down into a city.

949. The Chairperson: Is it ignorance or prejudice?

950. Mr Pollen: The gentleman from Sport NI touched on the point that there is probably a concern among its ranks in that members do not want to leave themselves open to any form of litigation and, therefore, they are playing it safe all the time. The Forest Service estate offers sporting leases, but they are for shotguns only. However, rather than relying on the DOE’s quarry species lists, the Forest Service has developed its own. It has restricted the quarry species to take account of the red data book lists. Therefore, it cannot ever be held to have done anything that could have had a negative conservation impact. Instead of relying on the DOE’s assessment, the Forest Service has made its own assessment. There is a certain amount of back-covering going on, probably allied to some prejudice and some vested interests.

951. Mr Elliott: Is the DOE legislation that you referred to the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill?

952. Mr Pollen: Yes, it is.

953. Mr Shannon: Good to see you, Roger. I register an interest as a member of BASC.

954. The Chairperson: We know.

955. Mr Shannon: It may go without saying, but I have to do it for the record. Roger, your presentation was excellent, and it has given us a lot of good ideas about how to get the Bill right. As John said, it is all about getting the legislation right now and not waiting until problems arise in 15 years’ time.

956. You talked about recreational shooting. I have travelled to Scotland to shoot because it has potential and is probably more attractive. Should the Department put something in the Forestry Bill to encourage recreational shooting?

957. Mr Pollen: That would be a big step forward. The value of the sport is established already, but there is a lot more potential value. One of the best things that Northern Ireland could do would be to set up a really good international-standard shooting complex, and maybe the Forest Service estate is the best place to do that. That would allow the Forest Service to engage actively with shooting. It would be on a slightly different basis from what we would ideally like to see, but there is an opportunity there.

958. However, the Forest Service has been effective in ignoring any references to sporting shooting, and it comes back to the business of signage. By ignoring the issue, it does not put its head above the parapet, and that allows the issue to be negated constantly and chipped away at. Our business is to put shooting in the public eye, and that is why we run a lot of game promotion nights. Shooting is a part of the countryside and a part of sustainable living. For government bodies and Departments to shy away from that, to give shooting scant regard and to keep it hidden is an abrogation of their duty.

959. Mr John Hetherington (British Association for Shooting and Conservation): If I may add to that, the Forest Service recreational review ignored sporting shooting: it was not mentioned.

960. Mr Pollen: Nevertheless, I think that at First Reading of the Bill the Minister gave sporting shooting as her second illustration of forest uses.

961. Mr Shannon: Roger made the valid point about the firearms legislation. We must not introduce legislation that will say one thing when the firearms legislation says something completely different. We must get it together and ensure that everything is legal.

962. The Chairperson: That is why we will seek a clear definition of that.

963. Mr Shannon: How is it that DOE seems to have an idea but DARD does not?

964. Mr Pollen: DOE is at risk of treading into murky territory, and I have raised that matter with officials. In the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill, the DOE is proposing that there should be a legal requirement to notify it of the change of occupier of an area of special scientific interest (ASSI). That means that the DOE will have to establish a register of who the occupiers of ASSIs are. It has a high target for designating parts of Northern Ireland as ASSIs, so there will be an awful lot of pieces. The DOE is proposing to take on the responsibility to keep a register of the occupiers of ASSIs.

965. However, I can see the whole thing being fraught with difficulties. People may be out shooting on an ASSI, which they are perfectly entitled to do, and they may engage with the police. Those people may say that they are shooting with the permission of the occupier. However, they may then go to the DOE to look at the register, which may not have been kept up to date or may have a different version of the occupier. Suddenly, those people may find that they have committed a firearms offence.

966. Therefore, the parallel in forestry is that if there is a proposal to establish a register to define who the occupier is, where will the register be kept? Will it be kept with Land Registry? How will it be kept? There are many unanswered questions, and they are a small base on which a big inverse pyramid will be built.

967. Mr Shannon: My last question relates to the control of vermin. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will not control foxes. Should the Forestry Bill include an onus on the Department to be responsible for vermin control? It would result in an improvement in the numbers of red grouse — and you are the chairperson of the red grouse committee — curlew and hare.

968. Mr Pollen: In the autumn, I chaired the first meeting of the red grouse species action plan delivery group. There were officials from DARD, DOE, Forest Service, environmental groups, and so on, around the table, and there was unanimous agreement that the biggest cause of the destruction of red grouse is foxes. A substantial amount of them were emanating from the forest and causing impacts. However, interestingly, when the sporting leases for the forestry estate were let, they specifically precluded bullet-firing weapons from use. Therefore, although shooting is permitted in forests, foxes cannot be controlled with rifles. That seems to be a major opportunity lost, and it is magnifying the problem. However, there is an opportunity to address that.

969. Mr Irwin: Thank you for your presentation. You made a number of interesting points that I, as a farmer, have made in the past. However, I think that Forest Service is ambitious in its expectation that it will double the area of forest in Northern Ireland. John Hetherington might not want to hear that, but realistic targets need to be set, and I think that is totally unrealistic. You made the observation that people can shoot on other landowners’ land and charge them for it. That also seems to be totally unrealistic. You made a number of valid points, and the Committee needs to look very closely at the Bill before it is passed.

970. Dr W McCrea: Unlike Jim, I am not a member of the shooting fraternity, so I might be more objective in asking some of these questions. You have identified a major problem, because there is a major shift and extension in power that the Department seems to be grabbing for itself. Am I right in saying that there could be major implications if it were to receive that power?

971. Mr Pollen: The short answer is yes. When we saw the original consultation document on options for forestry, we were apoplectic about the prospect of the option for compulsory purchase of sporting rights. I raised the issue at a number of meetings with Forest Service ground staff, and one of them came up to me at a meeting and told me not to worry about it, as Forest Service had made the proposal because there was one particular forest where it does not own the sporting rights, and it cannot reach agreement with the sporting rights owner. That was really why that option had been included.

972. That was meant to give us comfort, but it did quite the contrary. If legislation is being created because a deal cannot be reached with one individual, that is a serious abuse of power. We were supposed to be comforted by the fact that the power would not be widely abused. However, we all know that when powers are created and people are given responsibility for them, it is no longer up to us how they exercise those powers.

973. Dr W McCrea: That is not included in the Bill.

974. Mr Pollen: I had a meeting with officials in August, and they said that they had withdrawn it for the time being. In other words, it was a parked issue, rather than a dead issue. In any case, in many ways it has been superseded by proposals for being able to go on to private land adjacent to forestry. It is not quite the same as being able to go into that forestry, but it is not a bad compromise at no cost — you do not have to purchase the rights to do it.

975. Dr W McCrea: Do you feel that the Government are trying to act as gamekeeper and poacher at the same time?

976. Mr Pollen: The Chairman asked what I would do with a blank piece of paper. I do not believe that I would write that Bill. I would write a Bill that addresses the needs, not of the Forest Service, but of forestry in Northern Ireland.

977. Dr W McCrea: Are you suggesting that the regulator should be able, in what it does and in the example that it sets, to stand back and be more independent, rather than be an active participant?

978. Mr Pollen: Much of our concern stems from the total overlap of interests in the body that is known as the Forest Service. Regulatory interests and production and management interests completely overlap. In Scotland, there is notional separation of those interests, although it is not total. I believe that John would echo that, at least, different people are in charge of different elements and that there is, therefore, a degree of being able to deal with either the regulator or the manager. Here, that separation does not apply.

979. Mr Savage: Have you a base or a depot in Northern Ireland?

980. Mr Pollen: Yes. We have offices in Lisburn.

981. Mr Savage: Obviously, you see much potential in the forestry business in Northern Ireland. Having listened to you today, it seems to me that hard and fast decisions must be taken in order for the Forest Service to develop in the twenty-first century. It is clear from your comments that you do not believe that we are going the right way about it.

982. Mr Pollen: That is a fair comment. To be clear, however, I do not believe that it is you who is not going the right way about it: the problem is that the legislation has been drafted and developed by people who have a direct interest in it and who will be most affected by it.

983. The Chairperson: We will try to fulfil our expectation that we can make the Bill a better Bill and meet the needs that have been identified by a number of people who have presented oral evidence to us. That is why the Committee is a useful forum.

984. That being the end of questions, I ask you to step down. Thank you for your attendance and presentation.

21 January 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Willie Clarke

Witnesses:

Professor Sue Christie
Mr Geoff Nuttall

Northern Ireland Environment Link

Mr Brendan Friel
Mr Stuart Goodall
Lord Hamilton

Confederation of
Forest Industries

Mr Wesley Aston
Mr Gregg Shannon

Ulster Farmers’ Union

Dr Caro-lynne Ferris
Mr Brian Murphy
Mr Dawson Stelfox

Countryside Access
and Activities Network

985. The Chairperson (Mr Paisley Jnr): I welcome the witnesses and thank them for attending this meeting at Castlewellan Forest Park. I apologise for the slight delay in starting; some Committee members had considerable distances to travel. I thank you for your patience. I ask people to turn off any mobile phones or electronic devices that they have, because they interfere with the recording equipment, and Hansard staff want to take an accurate record of today’s meeting. Members also know that they should declare all interests, where appropriate.

986. I invite the representatives from the Northern Ireland Environment Link (NIEL) to make a presentation on the Forestry Bill. You are very welcome. As you know, we have been taking evidence from a number of organisations about that important piece of legislation; it is good to get out and about and take evidence from experts who work in the field — in the forest, I should say — and who understand the complexities, not only of what is currently going on, but of what is necessary to improve things for the future. I welcome Professor Sue Christie, the director, and Mr Geoff Nuttall. You are both very welcome to today’s meeting. I would like you to make a presentation and give us your views, and then I and my fellow Committee members will ask you some questions.

987. Professor Sue Christie (Northern Ireland Environment Link): Thank you very much. I will make a short introduction. Northern Ireland Environment Link is a network and forum body for voluntary environmental organisations in Northern Ireland. We represent 55 full member organisations, which are interested in all aspects of the environment, and their members, amounting to around 100,000 people in Northern Ireland. Geoff will give a brief introduction to the multiple benefits of woodland and the scope for using the Forestry Bill to achieve those benefits, and then I will speak about some specifics of the Bill.

988. Mr Geoff Nuttall (Northern Ireland Environment Link): I am here in my capacity as a member of the executive committee of Northern Ireland Environment Link. Seamus Gallagher, the policy officer, had previously planned to be here. I will outline what our organisation sees as some of the key benefits of woodland, with the particular aim of highlighting why we think the Forestry Bill represents an important opportunity to maximise those benefits and why we feel that we are not necessarily maximising all the benefits of forestry and woodland that we could. I am conscious that the Committee has already taken evidence from quite a number of organisations, so apologies if I say anything that you have heard before.

989. Woodland is a relatively scarce resource here, certainly when compared with woodland cover internationally. An often-quoted fact is that, at 6%, our percentage of woodland cover is the lowest of any country in Europe, with the exception of Iceland. The EU average is much higher. Actually, the majority of our woodland is not native but is state-owned coniferous plantation. There is only a very small amount left of the very rich resource that it is our natural woodland; that is particularly true of our ancient woodland, which is woodland that has existed continuously since 1600. In the past 50 years, we have lost 273 of our ancient woodlands.

990. Against that background, I would like to highlight the benefits of woodland beyond timber production.

991. The Chairperson: Sorry to interrupt, but I have a question on that last point, which was passed over in a way that was almost blasé. Some 273 of our ancient woodlands were felled in the past 50 years. How many are actually left?

992. Mr Nuttall: What we know, particularly from the work that the Woodland Trust has done, is that the mapped ancient woodland in Northern Ireland represents 0·08% of the land area, so it is a very small area. I cannot put a figure on how many woodlands there are, but those that remain are normally very small fragments of woodland. They tend to remain in river valleys that are inaccessible for other activities, and they tend to be in small clumps. Part of the issue, from a conservation point of view, is that those very small clumps of ancient woodlands would have even more biodiversity value if they could be linked and brought together. Those tiny fragments are left and, particularly in areas that were previously ancient woodland, there is potential to regenerate those areas, even over decades. Those tiny fragments are dotted around the country.

993. I will highlight the benefits of woodland, particularly those beyond forestry as an industry, which it clearly is in Northern Ireland. There are many others aspects to forestry, and we are keen that the Bill does its best to promote them. Woodland has recreation and leisure benefits, which are valued at over £400 million a year in Great Britain. However, woodland has other functions that will become even more important in the future, particularly those that affect climate change and the projected changes in weather patterns. Not only can forestation reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it can help to deal with natural flood management and the kind of weather patterns that are occurring more frequently, such as sudden heavy downpours. Woodland has a role to play in regulating those aspects of the climate.

994. I mentioned the biodiversity value of woodland. The richness of woodland, particularly ancient woodland, as a biodiversity resource is not as widely understood as it could be. It is irreplaceable; once we lose it, we cannot restore it through newer forestation. Moreover, woodland has a high amenity value, and research suggests that house values can be substantially influenced by the presence of trees and woodland. Beyond those benefits, woodland has a positive effect on ecosystem services. That concept is increasingly coming to the fore, and the services that we take for granted from woodland are becoming more and more important.

995. From the point of view of the supply of resources such as fuel, our local industry is at the forefront of using wood as fuel, and Balcas will make a presentation today. Woodland is a valuable regulator of air quality, helps to purify water and can, potentially, treat sewage. Moreover, it can reduce noise substantially; when woodland disappears, the increase in noise is noticeable. Over and above that, woodland has a range of social benefits and a cultural value. Moreover, the availability of woodland spaces that people can use has a health value. Woodland can act as an outdoor classroom and an education resource. It is a rich resource that could be exploited even more.

996. I will highlight three particular areas where there is more scope to unlock those benefits. First, the recreational benefits of woodland and the associated economic benefits appear to be underplayed in the Bill, which tends to focus on forestry as a commercial timber activity. Secondly, the biodiversity benefits could be emphasised to ensure protection of the rich biodiversity in our oldest woodlands. Moreover, we should think about new woodland creation in a way that helps us to sustain and restore biodiversity. Thirdly, woodland has a natural flood-management role. For instance, my organisation, the World Wildlife Fund, has been keen to highlight the value of using the special environmental projects element of the countryside management scheme to help natural flood-management projects. My colleagues in Scotland have done a lot of work in that area, and I understand that £17 million is unspent in the special environmental projects strand. That resource could be used to unlock that benefit.

997. Before I hand over to Sue, I will outline why we feel that the current policy and legislation has not been sufficient to unlock those benefits. If we look at the current strategy and policy of the Forest Service, progress on the target to increase woodland cover by 12% in 50 years is not on track. In fact, we have seen a fall in the amount of new woodland creation over the past five years. We also had a commitment in the biodiversity strategy to develop a new woodland inventory. However, that strategy is nearly 10 years old, and we have not seen any move towards developing the inventory.

998. The key message that I want to put across to the Committee is that we have a golden opportunity to update the legislation. It is a long time since our last forestry legislation, and we have a choice now. We could take a cue from the old GB legislation, but we need to remember that it is 40 years old. Do we want to get the best that we can from the Bill to modernise our returns from forestry and woodland? Those are the key points that I wanted to make.

999. Professor Christie: I want to stress that forestry is far more than just timber production and that there are opportunities in the Bill to optimise those additional public benefits. Forestry is a very important public resource, and it should be recognised and funded as such for the wider public benefit. Although important, the direct economic benefit of timber production is not the only benefit.

1000. I will make a few comments about specific aspects of the Bill. First, the Bill’s definition of forestry needs some amplification and should include greater detail on the other benefits of forestry and allow for some differentiation between its varied aspects. One aspect is commercial forestry, which largely involves softwood, and it has great benefits for timber production. It may be of less benefit to other areas, but it does have some biodiversity and recreational benefits.

1001. Ancient woodland is, obviously, our most valuable and most restricted area of woodland. It is the most valuable for providing ecosystem services and wider public benefits for education and recreation. Therefore, it needs special protection.

1002. Finally, short-rotation coppice and other crops are grown for energy production. The growth of such crops brings some benefits in that the land is used for forestry production, but it can also have additional biodiversity benefits. Short-rotation coppice is a crop that grows relatively rapidly, and, in contrast to long-term forestry, farmers can get in and out of that type of production over a relatively short period. It can also provide benefits, such as flood management. However, it is a slightly different animal to normal timber production, and it is notably different to the creation of ancient woodland. Therefore, a differentiation between those three types of woodland would benefit the definition of woodland in the Bill.

1003. The statutory purpose is slightly narrow. We believe that it should encourage and resource sustainable woodland through restoration, creation and management, and it should include some additional caveats on the benefits. The statutory purpose should apply to all woodland, both public and private. There should be a presumption against the felling of ancient and long-established woodland, and we need a requirement to produce an up-to-date woodland inventory. We have been planning to do that for nearly 10 years; it was originally mooted in the biodiversity strategy in 2000. We desperately need an up-to-date woodland inventory, because, if we are to have targets and monitor progress against them, we need to know what resources we have.

1004. We have targets for woodland creation, which were talked about. There are targets in the Forest Service strategy and the Programme for Government. However, there are no targets in the Bill, and we recommend that it contains a target for the retention and creation of native woodland. The problem is that we are not on course to meet our existing targets, much less any new ones. We need to ensure that all woodland creation respects priority natural habitats and integrates all woodland functions to deliver maximum benefits. That does not mean that every bit of woodland creation has to deliver all benefits; it simply means that, overall, the programme should deliver all of the benefits that we are looking at.

1005. We feel that the powers of the Department are a little bit too broad. There are no checks and balances on what the Department is allowed to do. For example, clause 4(1) states that:

“The Department may use or develop forestry land for a purpose other than forestry."

1006. That is meant to enable the development of facilities such as this one, the Grange in Castlewellan Forest Park. Unfortunately, it could also be used to enable the development of a housing estate or a commercial enterprise, so some specification is needed in that clause.

1007. The incidental powers are also extremely broad, and they would seem to allow anything. As a form of check and balance on the Department’s powers, we propose that there should be some sort of forestry advisory committee to advise the Minister on how the powers are being used. I know that some of our members who have testified before the Committee in the past have made similar proposals. Unlimited powers can lead to problems, and we feel that an external audit and external input would be most useful.

1008. The advisory committee could also have a role in the protection of trees. The Bill allows the Department to protect tree growing by killing animals or entering into neighbouring properties to conduct forestry control. Presumably, that forestry control means dealing with diseased or invasive alien plants that might be endangering trees. All those powers are fine. The problem is that the powers are written so broadly that they could enable people to do absolutely anything. We worry that endangered plants or animals could be damaged, because the Bill enables the Department to act if it “reasonably suspects" that trees are likely to be damaged. That seems far too broad a power, and there needs to be some sort of check so that people can appeal.

1009. We have wanted felling licences to be reintroduced to Northern Ireland for many years. We strongly welcome their reintroduction, because it is absolutely necessary. However, we request that the provision apply to the Government and the Forest Service as well as to everyone else. That would level the playing field and ensure that the same conditions apply to all. It is important that there are conditions to reduce the amount of pollution caused during and after felling and to ensure prompt reinstatement to prevent erosion and damage to the environment, both within the felled site and adjacent to it.

1010. We stress the need for an ancient woodland inventory to ensure that no ancient woodland is felled by accident because no one knew that it was ancient woodland when the felling licence was applied for. A public register of significant applications and a consultation period would also be highly desirable. That would not apply to every person who wants to fell a small tree in their garden. However, there should be a public notice of a proposal to fell a significant area, because organisations such as the Woodland Trust may want to comment on that.

1011. Ancient woodland and venerable trees have been mentioned several times. There needs to be a presumption against the felling of any ancient woodland. However, that, too, requires an inventory. Otherwise, we would not know where the venerable tree is, how old it is, and how to identify it if a felling licence were proposed. The inventory should also extend to conservation areas and trees that are subject to tree preservation orders.

1012. The Bill enables a felling licence to be granted for planned permitted development. However, that system seems almost back to front, because the Planning Service is not the expert on what woodland is suitable for felling, especially in the absence of an inventory. One would think that a felling licence, which will have been assessed by tree experts, would be required before planning permission is granted rather than afterwards. I can see the point of the measure, but it needs to be clarified.

1013. Regarding compensation and fees, full cost recovery is admirable, and it is absolutely essential that the polluter pays. However, the proposal to allow compensation for a denied felling licence seems to open the Department up to great expense. Also, if it is felt that a compensation claim is possible, a licence may be granted to save public money. We have seen that in the past in certain areas in County Down.

1014. Likewise, fees are very important, and we have no problem with fees for licences. However, they should not be used to generate income and, therefore, inappropriate felling. It is highly unlikely that that would happen, but it is something that should be covered in the Bill.

1015. I have two additional minor points. We welcome strongly the general right of access to the public. We also propose that, under the clause entitled ‘Interpretation’, there should be a definition of ancient and long-established woodland. It could be a circular definition in that once we have a register, it will be listed on it, too.

1016. The Chairperson: Thank you for your helpful presentation. You both mentioned the current targets in the Programme for Government. What should those targets really be? You said that we are not on track to meet them anyway, but what is your idea of a rigorous target?

1017. Mr Nuttall: The existing target of doubling woodland cover is substantial, but will it be met? That would bring us up to 12% woodland cover, which would be more in keeping with other countries, but the European average is now over 40%. There should be a minimum of 12%, but it would be desirable to think beyond that target. There is a lack of confidence in setting higher targets until we feel that forestation is, for various reasons, more of a priority.

1018. The Chairperson: Would you agree with a financial incentive to plant?

1019. Mr Nuttall: Do you mean whether there should be one?

1020. The Chairperson: Yes.

1021. Mr Nuttall: Yes. There are some incentives through the woodland grant scheme and other such schemes, and there are also the special projects under the countryside management scheme. There is probably scope to look at other incentives and to increase incentives to bring us up from our low base and to maximise the value of woodland.

1022. The Chairperson: You seem to be suggesting that the incentives are too low to spur people on. Are you suggesting that, if they were set at a higher level and were more attractive, we would be on track to meet and, perhaps, exceed the target?

1023. Mr Nuttall: Increasing the incentives would certainly help. However, that should be backed up with an approach that would promote the range of activities that can be done in woodlands. The recreational element should be looked at. The Bill seems quite narrow. If promoting forestry involved a lot of other things as well as direct incentives to plant, it would enhance the situation.

1024. The Chairperson: Would you be able to guesstimate how far off the current target we are?

1025. Mr Nuttall: I do not have a figure.

1026. Professor Christie: No, I do not think that we have.

1027. The Chairperson: Would we be halfway there?

1028. Mr Nuttall: I do not have a specific figure.

1029. The Chairperson: One of the problems that we have encountered is the lack of an inventory, and Sue mentioned that. You are in the business, and you know the players. Why is there a resistance to drawing up a detailed inventory so that we can discuss the issue with some sort of evidence-based knowledge of forests?

1030. Professor Christie: It is probably not high enough up the Department’s priority list. I do not think that anybody is saying that we should not have an inventory; it is just that the Department is saying that it is terribly sorry but it does not have it on its work programme this year.

1031. The Chairperson: Would it be that difficult to do it?

1032. Professor Christie: No, it would not. The Woodland Trust has already prepared an inventory of ancient woodland. We should have records of all the woodland that has been planted through forestry grants and so on. A lot of it could be done through a desk exercise that incorporates the information available from the geographical information system (GIS). I do not think that it would be difficult, and it should not be that expensive. There may be complications that I do not know about, and there would certainly have to be site visits to determine the type of woodland.

1033. The Forest Service strategy target of 12% is grand. My problem is more with the time frame of 50 years — that is a long time. If the 12% is to include things like short-rotation coppice in our woodland inventory, we should be looking at a much shorter timescale for such a target. I do not know whether we need go beyond a 100% increase in the next 20 years: we would have to consider in detail by how much specific amounts of different types of woodland could be increased. However, at this point, the 50-year timescale must be addressed, not the 12%.

1034. The Chairperson: Is incentivising the marketplace the best way to address that?

1035. Professor Christie: Incentivising the marketplace and, as Geoff said, encouraging people to see the multitude of benefits that they might get, apart from the timber and grant benefits, by looking at grants to support woodland creation, flood alleviation, and climate change adaptation. In other words, look at a broader way to promote this to the landowner instead of looking at it as traditional timber outputs.

1036. The Chairperson: If a national forestry advisory committee were created to advise the Minister and provide external input, who would be on it?

1037. Professor Christie: Such a committee should contain a mixture of external experts and public representatives. We will have to come back to you with detailed proposals, but the committee would be external to the Department and would act as a check and balance on it. I am sure that such a committee would not want to comment on every proposal, but the Department must be subject to some sort of check on how it exercises the broad powers that it is given in the Act.

1038. The Chairperson: Would it be a large body with a committee-type structure, or would it be more like an ombudsman’s office?

1039. Professor Christie: It could probably be done either way. I had not thought about using an ombudsman, but I do not see why there would be any problem with that, as long as he or she were accepted as being totally independent and not somebody who would say yes to anything proposed by the Department. I envision a small committee of 10 people as opposed to a huge committee.

1040. Mr Nuttall: The committee would need to reflect the broader purpose that we have argued is not in the Bill at the moment. If we are going to promote recreation and access, it would be sensible to have expertise on how best to do so. The situation would be similar for woodland for energy production or flood mitigation. It is important that the committee is broad enough to maximise the different purposes of woodland.

1041. Professor Christie: Definitely.

1042. The Chairperson: You mentioned offering free recreational opportunities: would that be a sustainable way of developing more forest and woodland for recreational purposes?

1043. Mr Nuttall: I hope that I am reflecting the position of Northern Ireland Environment Link correctly. A balance has to be struck between doing more to promote access to woodland and encouraging more people into woodland. We do not want charging to be a disincentive to that, so the norm should be not to charge for access to woodland. However, there would probably be circumstances in which charges would be made for facilities and services in woodlands.

1044. Professor Christie: The differentiation is between the specific services that are available or the maintenance that is required. For example, there is a lot of path maintenance required in Castlewellan Forest Park in contrast to charging for access to woodlands that have no paths or public access facilities, and so on.

1045. The Chairperson: Who should take up the slack in cost — the private sector or the government?

1046. Professor Christie: Does “private sector" mean landowner?

1047. The Chairperson: Yes, because whatever happens must be commercially viable. I have great sympathy for people who want to plant woodland to produce timber to sell as a raw material. That is a perfectly sustainable way of making a living. However, the use of woodland must be sustainable and someone has to pay. At the moment, the ability of government to pay for more and more is becoming less and less, if you catch my drift. In making proposals, we must very clearly identify who will ultimately be responsible for the cost.

1048. Professor Christie: Many benefits are definitely public benefits: they do not accrue to any individual. The benefits will be to the public purse, which people pay into through, for instance, their rates. I do not see any problem with individuals paying for access to forest parks that have facilities from which they can benefit.

1049. Mr Nuttall: Some public money that might go towards promoting recreation or places for larger events that might take place in woodland could be an investment that levers in money to the economy through tourism. Scotland has been good at attracting events, for example mountain biking events, and the Countryside Access Activities Network (CAAN) has done much work in looking at those benefits. There is a public benefit, and, therefore, a case for public money to be spent. It must also be remembered that investment can bring in further money.

1050. Mr Elliott: Thank you for the presentation. I declare an interest. There is something that is not in the Bill, but it is something that you may have an interest in. Traditionally, in Northern Ireland, forests, particularly commercial forests, were planted on land that was of little agricultural value, such as hill land, mountain land and bog land. What is your view on the replanting of such land when the trees are cut down for commercial purposes? There is now a clear policy not to plant on such areas because most of them are protected to some degree.

1051. Professor Christie: There is a strong difference between replanting and initial planting. Most of that land is peat bog, which is a major carbon sink that should not be damaged. No new planting should be done on such areas. However, replanting is slightly different, because the land has already been damaged.

1052. Mr Nuttall: An inventory would really help us to understand the history of the land, particularly in the case of land that was older woodland. Planted ancient woodland sites need to be prioritised for woodland restoration. The task of doing so is handicapped by not having the full picture of the history of those areas.

1053. Professor Christie: It is a case of horses for courses. Some sites will require intervention, and some will require something different. Each site must be assessed on what it was before, its current state and its potential. Some sites have high biodiversity value or high water storage value and so on, while others do not. Some areas may have been planted temporarily with soft woods but could return to hard woods, and that might be an excellent use for them. Each site needs to be considered individually when plans are made to cut down and replant. Sometimes, it is desirable to replant before the majority of the crop is cut down.

1054. Mr Elliott: It is a huge task to do that for each individual site.

1055. Professor Christie: Yes, but, when planning to cut a site, that work should be undertaken.

1056. Mr Elliott: In that case, I am concerned about the issue of farmers having a felling license and needing a management plan. Again, and I hope that you do mind me saying this; it is one of those environmental curses that we can sometimes do without. I do not mean to demean the need for it, but it may inhibit development, even from an environmental perspective, because people may decide that, instead of removing woodland and putting something better in its place, they will leave things as they are.

1057. I want the ancient woodland to be protected, and I have sympathy and support for your issue with respect to the definition of established woodland. I fully support the introduction of a definite inventory. However, I am concerned that people may allow things to go on as they have done, rather than undertaking a significant management plan that could cost them a great deal of money.

1058. Professor Christie: I hope that management plans would not cost a great deal of money.

1059. Mr Elliott: OK.

1060. Professor Christie: The management plan need only be a quick assessment of things to think about, such as where the land came from and what it is used for. Small areas would probably not need to be examined in that way. I initially thought that you were talking about vast swathes of uplands that were planted by Forest Service, which should definitely consider the way the land was used.

1061. Mr Elliott: I was thinking about those as well.

1062. In your presentation, you stated that 0·1% of ancient woodland remains. That figure is very small and would mean that if there was 10,000 acres of ancient woodland at one stage, there are only 10 acres left. How did you make that calculation?

1063. Mr Nuttall: Let me clarify that. As I alluded to earlier, the remaining ancient woodland covers 0·08% of the land areas. The wording used in the presentation is probably misleading, and I know what you are getting at. Really, we are saying that ancient woodland, which is woodland that predates 1600, makes up 0·1% of the land areas.

1064. Mr Elliott: You also stated that 273 ancient woodlands have been felled in the last 50 years.

1065. Professor Christie: That figure comes from data that we collected from the Woodland Trust.

1066. Mr Nuttall: I suppose your question is how the Woodland Trust has worked out that figure.

1067. Mr Elliott: That was one of my questions. My other question is how significant is it? Does the figure of 273 refer to ancient woodlands of an average size of 20 hectares or is it perhaps only 1 hectare?

1068. Mr Nuttall: It depends on how you are valuing the woodland, and from a biodiversity point of view, even a very small ancient woodland can have huge value, as it contains threatened species. However, the figure is calculated by assessing the best available historical records and identifying the locations of ancient woodlands on maps from pre-1600 and on those from 1830 onwards. If the woodlands that have been felled are on those maps then it is clear that they were ancient woodlands.

1069. Mr Elliott: I am aware of a number of portions of land that the Department has for sale at the moment. What is your view of the Department selling off substantial portions of land as opposed to planting woodland on it? Should the Department be selling that land for commercial purposes or utilising it for woodland or foresting?

1070. Mr Nuttall: Are you referring to land owned by the Forest Service?

1071. Mr Elliott: No. I am referring to land owned by the Department. However, as an agent of the Department, it would be quite easy for the Forest Service to utilise that land.

1072. Mr Nuttall: That goes back to the issue of whether we are maximising the value of land and woodland. If we are not meeting our reforestation targets, surely we must think about whether at least some land would be valuable for that purpose. I do not know whether we should take the view that the Department should not sell any land for commercial purposes, but in order to meet its targets on reforestation it should seriously think about using its land in that way.

1073. Professor Christie: It is horses for courses. I do not think that we are going to sell off Dundonald House — I mean I think that we want to sell it off — [Laughter.]

1074. The Chairperson: That is a good idea. Perhaps we should make that a proposal.

1075. Professor Christie: The land that Dundonald House sits on is highly valuable for commercial purposes, whereas if we were considering a site on a hill, that might be more appropriate for forestry. It depends what the land is and what it could be used for.

1076. Mr Nuttall: It goes back to the issue of how judging the value of the land will depend on how broadly you are thinking of using it. If you are considering using it for timber production you can assign a certain value to it, but if you are thinking more broadly about recreation, biodiversity and other uses then you must think differently about the value of that land.

1077. Mr W Clarke: I thank the witnesses for their presentation.

1078. One of the biggest gaps that I can see in the Bill relates to climate change, which should be included in the general duty on the Department that is dealt with in clause 1 of the Bill. The Bill is going to be with us for a considerable period of time, and I think that that duty should be built into the legislation.

1079. The Department and Forest Service will have to consider the issues you have outlined — greater use of construction, biomass, club management, carbon sinks around towns, pests and changes of climate and environment. The issue of climate change is fundamental, and must be included in the Bill. Perhaps you would like to speak about that first.

1080. Professor Christie: Absolutely. I could not agree more.

1081. Mr W Clarke: Should priority be given to broadleaf forestry and habitats in and around towns, to act as carbon sinks as well as to have a recreational and tourism purpose, and also for health and well-being?

1082. Professor Christie: Yes; native broadleaf. That will be done with a mind to thinking about what the climate is going to be in the future and what species are likely to be able to continue to grow here, some of which may be at the edge of their tolerance already. We need to think about what species we want to plant in relation to their benefits throughout the spectrum and their ability to survive in the future. A tree that is planted now will only be maturing in around 100 years: the environment will be very different then.

1083. Mr W Clarke: At the moment, I do not believe that tree preservation orders are working. There could be a situation in which a developer cuts down 100 protected trees and, most of the time, faces no prosecution whatsoever. Should the Bill make provisions for the Forest Service to take control of tree preservation orders from the DOE? The system is not working at the moment.

1084. Professor Christie: It is certainly not working at the moment, and the idea that someone could “accidentally" back a bulldozer over a protected tree is appalling. We will have to go back and look in detail at proposals for a balance between Planning Service and the new powers for felling licenses. They certainly need to be fairly closely interrelated. I do not know how that can be done, because Planning Service has the traditional role of managing tree preservation orders. I agree that it has not done that effectively. It has been a source of much frustration for us for several years that all we have had are tree preservation orders and they have not been effective. There has been a lack of felling licences, which is why we are so happy that they are being introduced. However, I do not know whether just transferring the control of tree preservation orders to the DOE is the most effective way of doing it.

1085. Mr Nuttall: I know that there was previously an attempt, through the revision of the Planning Order, to try to strengthen tree preservation orders and increase the fines, because £5,000, as it was, was not a substantial disincentive to the developer. Probably even more significant is the fact that the limited amount of enforcement meant that there was no real feeling of threat. The DOE, certainly in the areas of enforcement and resourcing of tree officers, did not have enough people to be on the ground identifying where tree preservation orders might need to be made and to stop notices pending a tree preservation order being made. The other key issue is that if there is a delay of any sort, the tree is already gone before a tree preservation order is made.

1086. A proposal that has been made in the past is that woodland preservation orders should be introduced as opposed to tree preservation orders. Tree preservation orders focus on one individual tree, whereas woodlands are more than just the sum of their trees. They are habitats; the habitat between the trees and the undergrowth is of high value as well. There is a case for that. How it will be enforced, and whether the incentives and disincentives are strong enough, is more important than whether it is managed by DOE. Felling licences are the other side of the coin, through which DARD would at least have another weapon in the armoury to try to prevent those sorts of losses.

1087. Professor Christie: Whether it is the same Department doing both or there is just very strong integration between the two, a co-ordinated approach is an absolute requirement, because things could easily fall through the gaps if there is no co-ordination. It is all about being taken seriously. That is what was lacking in the past; there was no enforcement, no allocation of officers or application of tree preservation orders. Developers did not take things seriously because it did not cost them enough.

1088. Mr W Clarke: Is the Bill strong enough on recreation and working in partnership with councils and community groups to develop play facilities such as adventure playgrounds for children and teenagers, and educational nature projects? Is there potential for health and well-being — that instead of people getting prescriptions for mental health issues, they could have a year’s subscription for car parking and access to forest parks?

1089. Professor Christie: That is a brilliant idea; it promotes the benefits of woodland to health and well-being. Access to the countryside is just as important for physical well-being, because you can get out and walk and help your heart. We are very keen to broaden the Bill and bring out those other benefits explicitly. Overall, that will enhance the way in which the woodland is viewed. Therefore, we need to make the Bill as strong as possible. We need to lead the UK in having a strong, proactive, forward-thinking Forestry Bill, as opposed to catching up with its counterpart in Britain, which is already 30 years or 40 years out of date. We would welcome a stronger Bill.

1090. Mr Burns: The lack of forests here is disappointing. How do you encourage more people to plant broad leaf or create forests in which all those ideas about recreation and well-being could be put in place? We need legislation to protect forests, but we also need more commercial enterprise to encourage more people to plant forests. We should have had our ancient woodland. Where I come from, near Lough Neagh, would have been a tremendous environment for forests 100 years ago, but no one replaced the woodland that was cut down, which is one of the big problems that has to be overcome.

1091. Professor Christie: That is absolutely right: there needs to be a combined approach using fiscal incentives and raising awareness of the importance that woodland can have for recreation and other uses. Woodland can be planted by landowners now as recreational material for the future. However, the problem is that this is a long-term benefit. The woodland that is required for educational and recreational outputs has to be more mature than that for timber output. If a person is to invest now but not see a return for five years or 10 years, we need to front-load the fiscal incentives so that the benefits to the public are recognised in the grants schemes that are available for people to plant woodland.

1092. Mr Nuttall: It might help to allow the countryside management scheme to tie landowners into longer-term agreements for 10 years or 15 years. There should be incentives to grow hardwoods that mature more slowly. Perhaps we could maximise, though the countryside management scheme and, when the next rural development programme comes on stream, which might provide stronger incentives for landowners to develop land management that will pay in the longer term.

1093. Professor Christie: If that is tied in with the climate change benefit, it can be another very strong argument for why more woodland is needed.

1094. Mr Burns: Northern Ireland farms are relatively small. Farmers here do not have country estates or thousands of acres and cannot decide to plant one hundred acres or more. Our problem is that our people operate on a much smaller scale. The situation requires big businesses or people with a long-term view of a commercial return to plant thousands of acres to make a real significant difference now and in 25 years’ time.

1095. Professor Christie: It will have to be government-led. If a farmer who has 10,000 acres of land wants to allocate 2% of it to woodland; that is great. If they only have 10 acres, they will not be able to produce anything, so that cannot really be done. If thousands of acres are to be planted in single swathes, government will have to co-ordinate that and fund it. Otherwise, we will up with tiny areas of land being planted, with a quarter hectare here and half a hectare there. We need to address that.

1096. Mr Burns: It is neither here nor there in the countryside. There needs to be real swathes of planting, which would then develop forestry, forest parks, recreation and so on. That cannot be done with a very small area; for example, with half a hectare. I agree that the scheme should be Government led, but some serious planting really has to be undertaken.

1097. The Chairperson: Professor Christie and Mr Nuttall, thank you very much for your time and presentation, and for taking those questions.

1098. We now move to an oral presentation on the Forestry Bill by the Confederation of Forest Industries (ConFor). Brendan Friel, Stuart Goodall and Lord Hamilton, you are all very welcome to today’s meeting of our Agriculture Committee. The floor is yours. We are eager to hear your presentation, after which we will go through the rigmarole of asking questions.

1099. Mr Stuart Goodall (Confederation of Forest Industries): Thank you, Chairman. I will give a general introduction and a recap of the paper that we sent as evidence to the Committee. I hope that there will be plenty of time afterwards for members to ask questions of the three of us.

1100. I am chief executive of the Confederation of Forest Industries (ConFor), which represents businesses across the forest industry and the wood-using supply chain. In practice, we are delivering the sustainability, which you talked about earlier, through the mills that provide income to the public and private sector woodland owners, management companies and experts. We provide services to woodland owners, which helps to deliver the sustainable forest management of the woodlands across Northern Ireland.

1101. In recent decades, we have seen the development of a modern, competitive forestry and wood sector in Northern Ireland that delivers green jobs and business growth, as well as tackling carbon through the planting of trees, as we already heard, through providing timber for renewable energy and providing wood for construction, for example. That is the use of wood in its solid form, where carbon is locked up for long periods. However, it is a product that has a very carbon-lean profile and, therefore, can reduce carbon emissions from the production of steel, concrete, plastics and so on. That is beneficial to the development of a low-carbon economy, and we would welcome recognition of that in the Bill.

1102. There seems to be opportunity for further growth in the sector, and the Bill should recognise the opportunity to deliver a low-carbon economy. The Forest Service has played an important role in that area over the decades, and it should work with the private sector to continue the growth of forestry businesses. Moreover, we hope that the Bill will reference a desire to increase the area of woodland. Doubling the amount of woodland is a very ambitious target, but it is good to set an ambitious target on which to focus our minds and efforts. The Bill should include recognition of the importance of maintaining and, hopefully, increasing the supply of wood. Forestry is a long-term business, and businesses in that sector require long-term confidence and security, which, if it is in place, will support the significant investment that has taken place.

1103. The Bill should reflect the importance of recognising the biodiversity and recreational value of all types of woodland. As previous witnesses have said, ancient woodland is very important. At the same time, the biodiversity and recreational benefits of softwoods have never been properly recognised in public policy. We should not consider softwoods to be the forests that we planted in the 1970s, the 1960s or earlier. At that time, the intention was to put as many trees in the ground as quickly as possible, without any real thought for landscape, the environment, people or wildlife. That is no longer the case. Modern forestry standards, which are agreed by all stakeholders, environmental organisations and social and business organisations, ensure that we manage our forests in a much more modern way and provide opportunities for access and much increased biodiversity and mixtures of species. Commercial forestry is good for a low-carbon economy and for biodiversity and access.

1104. Another key element of the Bill is felling licensing. As a sector, we never welcome new regulation. However, we recognise that felling licensing has a role. Due diligence legislation that is being considered by the EU and is likely to be approved in the short term is causing pressure and will require people to be able to demonstrate where they buy timber from. A felling licence may be the way to tackle such issues. Our key concern is the wish to charge for felling licensing. That does not happen in the Republic or in Great Britain. We want to point out very strongly that the Bill’s objective is to deliver sustainable forest management and to encourage people to manage their woods sustainably and to recognise that it involves the production of wood. It should encourage people to plant new woodlands. If we introduce a measure that is seen as a disincentive, it will be harder to achieve the Bill’s overall aims. We support the removal of any proposal to charge for felling licences.

1105. Moreover, the concern that has arisen from experience in Great Britain is the way in which the mechanism of felling licensing will be applied. Will it be done with a light or heavy touch? A heavy touch will act as a disincentive for people to manage their woods, because that will become such an onerous, difficult and drawn-out experience. The vast majority those long, drawn-out cases do not result in any significant change to the process; it is merely an issue of capacity and of people wanting to ask questions. We recommend that the administration be carried out with a light touch.

1106. I will touch on some other aspects of the Bill. As we have highlighted previously, the clauses relating to compulsory acquisition are written very broadly and would benefit from proper definition. We recognise that there are issues around access and development in certain cases and that the ability to acquire land compulsorily will, therefore, be beneficial to the Department. However, we wish to ensure that that power is not drawn too broadly and that it is exercised only as a last resort. The Department must try to find ways around access issues rather than simply jump straight to compulsory acquisition. Given that the private sector sometimes suffers from similar access issues, we wondered whether there was an opportunity for Forest Service to operate an access policy and to work with the private sector to solve problems there too.

1107. We recognise that deer can be a problem. However, it is important that Forest Service acts only where there is a problem, rather than simply trying to do everything itself. Whether Forest Service has the capacity to take such action is an important issue, but there are benefits of working in concert with the private sector to address that. Deer do not just stay in one place. Therefore, if one wants to control them, one cannot expect that they will be adjacent to Forest Service woodland next week, for instance, because they move around. If there is a need to control the deer population, it is better that that is done through a co-ordinated policy with the private sector.

1108. Finally, people are pushing for access to woodlands, and the number of requests seems to be increasing everywhere. Such access needs to be introduced in a way that is sensitive to the other uses of forests, so that it does not undermine the wider sustainability of the activities involved in managing forests, whether those are in the public or private sector. That was just a quick run-through of the issues. We are happy to answer members’ questions.

1109. The Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation and for the briefing paper that you forwarded to the Committee. That was very helpful because it covered all the relevant issues. It is important that the Committee and, indeed, the public grasp the extent of business that goes on in Forest Service.

1110. Your submission states:

“It is estimated that wood processing businesses alone provide £9·2m of wages, in addition to the £33·5m of estimated expenditure on goods and services."

1111. That is a significant and encouraging identification of what forestry businesses provide to Northern Ireland.

1112. I am of the view that legislation and government should be there to help rather than to hinder or restrict opportunities. What can the Bill do to help to grow that wage base and investment in the economy? What could be added to the Bill to benefit the industry, so that in 10 or 15 years’ time, the industry will provide double the amount of wages as a result of Forest Service?

1113. Mr Goodall: I will give you a few quick ideas, and then my colleagues can jump in with their answers. This comes back to the key points in our submission. Wood-processing is a long-term business, and people need to have confidence in it. People need to be reassured that, if the Government invest in a mill or in upgrading a mill, such as Balcas, there will be continued timber supplies in future. Therefore, Forest Service, as the principle supplier of timber, must provide reassurance through statements about its production and about what it intends to do for the future, and the Government, who are responsible for managing the public estate on behalf of people in Northern Ireland, must say that they will recognise and support that.

1114. The area of new planting should be increased. At the moment, we are processing far more wood in Northern Ireland than we are producing, because we are pulling in supplies from elsewhere. That demonstrates how competitive the sector is. It also means that the sector has the opportunity to expand, if we can get more wood in the ground.

1115. There is also an opportunity to look at different types of forestry. Short-rotation coppice was mentioned earlier. It has been quite difficult for that to take off because it is competing with high-value agriculture cereal crops. However, short-rotation forestry is an attractive mechanism, because it takes between 16 and 19 years and sits between conventional 40-year rotation forestry and short-rotation coppice, which takes between five and eight years. Encouraging planting and providing security of supply will help the industry, as will recognising the benefit of using wood as a product in renewable energy, which has already been highlighted, and in construction. Achieving greater recognition of the value that carbon-based products can add in areas such as construction, where they help us to tackle climate change, would help mills to be successful and to plan for the future. The Government should take a lead in promoting that idea and, perhaps, deliver things through other policy areas, such as —

1116. The Chairperson: Would such a programme have to be incentivised, and, if so, what should the incentives be?

1117. Mr Goodall: You would have to give the matter some thought, but there are various mechanisms that you could look at. You could label products to ensure that people understand that there is carbon in them. Indeed, a BSI standard already exists for embedded-carbon products, so, if a wooden product is competing with one made from another material, anyone thinking of buying the product to utilise it in construction would immediately realise that the wooden option would result in a significantly better carbon benefit. Equally, by recognising and encouraging the use of wood, through the use of British standards, Building Control would be helping to build the market for wood products. Those things are soft measures, which do not require finance. We realise that public finances will be, to put it mildly, stretched in the coming year.

1118. The Chairperson: There are already incentives for certain types of planting. You will probably take the view that they are either targeted at the wrong sectors or they could go further in targeting the sort of things that you have just identified. Is that right?

1119. Mr Goodall: The recent increase in the grant that is available for planting will help, but there is also a hearts-and-minds aspect. People need to understand how forestry can fit in with their landownership and that it is a positive thing. They need to see planting trees as something that they want to do. Forcing a farmer to plant trees is not the way to achieve new planting objectives. However, if, as part of landholding or estate holding, planting trees is seen as an attractive thing to do, and people recognise that there is value to the product that comes from faster growing measures, such as short-rotation forestry, they will be encouraged to go down that route. Such measures require promotion and engagement.

1120. The Chairperson: If, in your dream scenario, the Department were to give you a blank sheet of paper and ask you to write down one thing that you would like to see in the Bill and that would make a significant difference, could you come up with anything?

1121. Mr Goodall: It would involve securing a clear promise that wood supplies would increase for the existing processing industry and for the growing wood-fuel industry. Such a commitment would send a strong message to everybody involved that sustainable forest management is a route to go down. We are not looking to go back to mid-twentieth-century policies — planting trees for the sake of it. Modern forestry is about delivering a variety of objectives.

1122. The Chairperson: I want to put on record what you said, because, importantly, the latest investment figures estimate that the forest products sector will be worth approximately £13 million a year, including the material that will go to the first combined heat and power (CHP) plant in Northern Ireland. The wood supply sector is responsible for tens of millions of pounds of investment. It is important, therefore, that people grasp the potential of forestry and recognise the commitment that already exists in the private sector to develop it.

1123. Mr Brendan Friel (Confederation of Forest Industries): We would not have invested — and firms other than Balcas have invested in new processing equipment — without a joint approach by the Department. Otherwise, there was no way that we would have got the funding to go ahead with an investment of £25 million in a CHP plant and a new sawmill.

1124. My dream is to achieve a 50% increase in forest, which is desperately important as we go forward, because, as you said, in Northern Ireland, the processing sector utilises approximately 800,000 tons of wood. The Forest Service produces 400,000 tons, so we are importing a lot of wood from other places. It would be good to get the raw material here.

1125. The Chairperson: That is a good point. I want to turn to the issue of felling licences. Again, you identified the kernel of that issue when you said that there is no charge for such licences in GB or in the Republic of Ireland. In your written submission you state:

“A charge could well act as a disincentive to plant new woods or manage existing woodlands."

1126. You go on to make a strong point that:

“This would have the perverse effect of undermining the central purpose of the Bill."

1127. Again, it is important that the Committee understands what felling licence charges would mean to your industry. How much would felling licences cost your members in a year, if those charges were to be enacted?

1128. Lord Hamilton (Confederation of Forest Industries): We have not had any indication of what they would cost. One indication is that the Forest Service would like to bring in charges in the future rather than immediately. From a grower’s point of view — that is my profession — it would act as a total disincentive. It would be just a further burden of bureaucracy and cost that we could really do without. At the moment, the business is marginal at best. We want to find better ways to reduce costs in our business and expand income. A further charge will be just a choke around the neck of our business and will make us less competitive with growers in Scotland and the Irish Republic.

1129. The Chairperson: Essentially, given what Mr Goodall and Mr Friel and our previous witnesses said about the desire for planting and for more raw materials, a felling licence would take away the incentive to even go down that road.

1130. Lord Hamilton: Felling licences are a slightly different issue for us. First, EU regulations are coming in that will make it better to have a felling licence. Our problem and the reality will be that, if there is a charge for that felling licence, it will act as a financial penalty for people in this business in the commercial sector. That is totally wrong.

1131. As it is, we are working towards having long-term management plans for our forest, which absorbs a huge amount of time and huge costs, but that is part and parcel of doing the business in a professional manner, and we accept that that is the methodology with which we have to work. To have a further penalty as part of that will not wash, and it will not attract new people to forestry, which is the name of the game. The Forest Service’s ambition is that the private sector will create an additional 150,000 hectares of woodland in the next 40 years. That works out at roughly 3,745 hectares a year of new additional planting by us. How are we going to do it, and why do we want to do it? We do not want to do it if people are going to impose more regulations and the costs associated with those regulations.

1132. The Chairperson: If this Committee were to make a recommendation that there should be no charge for that licence, would you agree with that?

1133. Lord Hamilton: Very much so.

1134. The Chairperson: We will note that.

1135. Mr Elliott: Thank you very much for your presentation. I note that, in your presentation, you said that there was an average of 44% woodland cover in Europe. In other submissions that figure varies considerably. Environment Link told us that it was 37%. We have had indications that the percentage in the European Union is somewhere between 28% and 44%. That represents quite a difference, and we need to have a reasonably accurate figure.

1136. The Chairperson: We have seen throughout this exercise that there is no proper research base from which we can start to investigate.

1137. Mr Elliott: It was just a comment, Chairperson.

1138. I will return to felling licensing; my initial thought was to oppose it altogether. I accept the need to protect ancient woodland, but I am concerned not only about the cost of a felling licence but the cost of a bureaucratic management plan. That concerns me more, because they can build anything into that if they so wish. I thought that a management licence would be needed once an inventory of ancient woodland was completed, but that licensing for commercial forests would involve a simple application process. Would that be a reasonable approach?

1139. Mr Friel: I must point out that we cannot sell any wood unless it is certified. To be certified, we have to make sure that the wood has come from a legal source, which means that all our suppliers, including the Forest Service and private enterprises, must already have a management plan certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). That certification sets rigorous standards. Therefore, the owner must certify the wood before we can take it. That process is costly; it involves auditors, it takes a long time and the owner must provide a plan. A felling licence on top of that would be an added burden. I am saying that there already has to be a management plan that proves sustainability.

1140. Mr Elliott: So, something is already in place.

1141. Mr Friel: Yes.

1142. Mr Elliott: OK. Provided that the legislation could run alongside that, would most people be reasonably happy?

1143. Mr Friel: Yes, very much so.

1144. Lord Hamilton: It is now the accepted norm in Europe that anyone involved in commercial forestry is certified.

1145. Mr Elliott: What are your thoughts about the Department requiring a felling licence, if commercial operators need one?

1146. Mr Friel: The Department must have FSC certification, or we could not take its wood. The Department must already provide that management plan. The same applies to the Republic of Ireland and Scotland, from which we buy quite a lot of wood. Wood cannot be traded unless it is certified.

1147. The Chairperson: That is useful to know. Like Tom Elliott, I thought that the Department had a free hand.

1148. Mr Friel: For some reason, forestry is way ahead of what is happening in the certification of food products. It started because of the destruction of the rain forests in Brazil and other places, but certification is now worldwide. Nowadays, all wood is certified. If someone or some Government body wants to start using wood pellets for, for example, heating, the first thing that they must do is prove the sustainability of the wood that is used, and that is done through the FSC.

1149. Mr Elliott: OK. That leads me to the relationship between the Forest Service as a commercial operator and the private commercial forest operators. At present, does the Forest Service enjoy an advantage over private operators that the legislation fails to address? As a Government agency, I assume that the Forest Service need not return the same degree of profit as a commercial operator. Does the Forest Service dictate the market price?

1150. Mr Goodall: We have looked at that, not so much as regards price, but in respect of profitability and activity in Northern Ireland and the rest of GB. It is about what one aims to deliver from woodland and whether that can be made a sustainable activity. For example, if a Forest Service is expected to deliver more visitor and associated facilities, the only way that it can do so is by clearly identifying and managing that commercial activity and producing timber around it. The private sector would strip out all those other overheads. I am not aware that we have that level of information; we have struggled to get hold of it.

1151. Lord Hamilton: It could be a lot worse. In certain other parts of GB, the relationship between the private and public sector is pretty abysmal. Our relationship with the Northern Ireland Forest Service is very good. The service is professional and does a good job. It showed a lot of leadership in underpinning investment and allowing it to occur in Northern Ireland, such as the development of the combined heat and power (CHP) plant at Balcas and other initiatives. The service has delivered many benefits, and should be congratulated for showing a lot of foresight.

1152. Like all things, the Forest Service is not perfect. We are not perfect. If the new stocking of woodland continues and gathers momentum, we expect that, by 2050, the balance between the hectarage that the public estate holds and that which is held by the private sector will be slightly different. In time, that will even out. I do not think that any adverse price manipulation occurs in the market, certainly not from a grower’s point of view.

1153. Mr Elliott: That is interesting. How much of the wood that goes into commercial activity comes from Forest Service?

1154. Mr Friel: The processing sector uses 800,000 cu m, 400,000 cu m, or around 50%, of which is produced in Northern Ireland.

1155. The Chairperson: Where else is wood taken from, once the Northern Ireland supply is exhausted?

1156. Mr Friel: It is taken principally from the Republic of Ireland, and around 100,000 cu m comes from Scotland.

1157. Mr Elliott: I assume that not all of that 400,000 cu m is produced by Forest Service.

1158. Mr Friel: Forest Service produces 400,000 cu m, and the private sector in Northern Ireland probably produces around 30,000 cu m.

1159. Mr Elliott: The Forest Service is really dominant; it has 90% of the Northern Ireland market.

1160. Lord Hamilton: Our organisation beseeches government to create a level playing field between the private sector and the public sector in any commercial matter. If felling licences are to be introduced, what is good for us should be good for the public sector.

1161. Mr Elliott: I assume that you hold the same view on compulsory acquisition.

1162. Lord Hamilton: That issue is perhaps a little trickier.

1163. Mr Goodall: The principle is the same. Rather than putting costs on Forest Service, we would rather that costs were not put onto the private sector. That is how a balanced relationship can be maintained. If the ability is given to resolve a problem in the public sector, a commitment should be made to help resolve similar problems in the private sector.

1164. Mr Elliott: From that I detect that you would not be opposed to compulsory acquisition with limited purpose but that it should be available for the private sector as well as the public sector.

1165. Mr Goodall: We do not want the private sector to have compulsory purchase rights.

1166. Mr Elliott: Let us call a spade a spade.

1167. Mr Goodall: Measures can be taken to help the private sector to gain access. Forest Service has a role in supporting sustainable forest management, and it has been supporting that successful sector. If accessing hard-to-get-to timber is part of that, we want the Forest Service to help, but we will not ask it to acquire land compulsorily on our behalf.

1168. Mr W Clarke: You said that the Bill proposes that a management plan will be needed for a felling licence. Is a management plan is already needed to obtain a grant from the Department?

1169. Lord Hamilton: Invariably, that is the case. It depends on the scale of the operation. FSC certification is required to sell wood to the market.

1170. Mr W Clarke: The management plan could be duplicated for the purpose of obtaining a felling licence.

1171. Lord Hamilton: Yes, the fact that an organisation is certified by the FSC should be good enough.

1172. Mr W Clarke: The management plan and FSC certification could dovetail.

1173. Lord Hamilton: They could dovetail easily, or a felling licence could be granted automatically as a result of being certified by the FSC.

1174. Mr W Clarke: That is the way forward.

1175. Lord Hamilton: It should save money, because it would not require more people to do the paperwork.

1176. Mr W Clarke: What incentives could be put in place beyond those that currently exist? Perhaps you think that the current incentives are sufficient? I am not a farmer, and I find it hard to believe that some farmers would not go into forestry, because I think that it is a viable business opportunity, particularly for older farmers, for whom I see it as a pension scheme.

1177. In any case, an EU directive will be introduced for farmers, because they will have to offset their emissions from agriculture. They will have to either get rid of their cows or offset emissions. The Department must encourage farmers to think about that need to offset methane emissions from agricultural production. That would help, but farmers must be proactive on that. What are your thoughts on that?

1178. At present, what percentages of softwood and hardwood are used in the industry in Ireland?

1179. Mr Friel: The use of hardwood is at almost 0%. I do not believe that there is any hardwood industry left in Ireland. Some people might use it for hobby work, although that would be all.

1180. Mr W Clarke: Does that mean that all the wood that is used in Ireland is softwood?

1181. Mr Friel: All of it is softwood. On the island of Ireland, the industry uses around 2·2 million cubic metres per annum.

1182. Mr W Clarke: That gives an idea of the scale. I believe that there is a balance to be struck with the use of softwoods in recreational pursuits. That applies particularly to activity tourism, such as mountain biking, pony trekking and the use of log cabins in holiday destinations. That is all compatible. The point is to achieve that mix, and hopefully the Bill will do so.

1183. Can you outline the potential for biomass? What weaknesses do you see in central government’s promotion of biomass?

1184. Mr Goodall: I will comment quickly on some of your earlier remarks. You mentioned centralisation and Europe. I agree with you. The EU is looking away from direct support for production to more land-based support. As we mentioned before, if there were a level playing field with agriculture and forestry — as in land-based support that includes forestry as part of someone’s holding — that would make a big difference in encouraging farmers to plant trees.

1185. The carbon element is important. If we look at projections for the reduction of carbon emissions, the level that we will reach by 2050 will still include a significant amount of agricultural emissions, which is because they are difficult to reduce. They are a big part of the total amount of emissions. It could be seen as an encouraging incentive if people could consider how to introduce forestry on to their land holding with the aim of reducing the overall carbon footprint of their farm or estate.

1186. It is a matter of great regret that we do not have a competitive hardwood industry. That is not just the situation in Northern Ireland; it is similar in GB. Unfortunately, our neighbours in France, Belgium and other parts of the continent grow hardwoods much more quickly and effectively than we do. They have a historical industry in place. Therefore, although we would like to see the hardwood industry springing up and supporting the sustainable management of hardwood forestry, that would not be practical. That is an important point.

1187. The Chairperson: I assume that climate is the reason for that.

1188. Mr Goodall: The reason is partly climate and partly having the right trees. Growing trees is about selection over hundreds of years. You identify trees that grow well, fast and straight and that, therefore, give you high-value timber. Those countries have been doing that for centuries. We have lost that tradition over many hundreds of years. It would, therefore, take us hundreds of years to get it back. However, it is a nice ambition.

1189. The Chairperson: Is there nothing that we can do to leapfrog that process?

1190. Mr Goodall: No; it is difficult.

1191. Lord Hamilton: A great deal of genetic engineering goes on, certainly in America and elsewhere in Europe, and it will be years upon years before we know the outcome of that research.

1192. Mr Goodall: Bringing back hardwoods will still require an owner to say that he or she will take woodland and manage it for 100-odd years.

1193. Mr Friel: That is a hell of a long-term investment.

1194. Mr Goodall: We do not have any hang-ups about different types of trees. We like all trees. However, if you look at it in business terms, in reality, ours is a softwood industry.

1195. Mr W Clarke: Is there potential to have a short-term work plan for recreational pursuits, including activities and tours, in a broadleaf, hardwood forest while also having the longer-term goal of harvesting sections and having mixed forest? I think that that should be considered.

1196. Mr Goodall: If you embark on any forestry, you must think long term. The intention of a great deal of forestry in GB, particularly in England, is just to get trees into the ground. That is the objective. After that, owners walk away, and ground support disappears after 15 or 20 years. What is left is just scrubby woodland that, because it is not being supported, does not have much benefit and does not deliver what people wanted from the land. You have to take people with you and tell them that you want them to manage the woods in the long term. It would then be possible to create self-sustaining forestry, which is very attractive for access and biodiversity, that has a mixture of species, including hardwoods. That then produces very high-value wood on a sustainable basis, which helps to pay for the management of the forestry, meaning that there is no need for the public purse or someone else to continually fund support for it. That sort of element is part of a lot of the public policy thinking.

1197. At the beginning of this session, I said that I would try to answer a whole bunch of questions about renewable energies in one go. Clearly, Northern Ireland is importing a lot of energy, and wood is an effective way of delivering energy, particularly at a local level. The wood sector is not going to provide the solution to renewable energy in Northern Ireland, or to energy generally, but it can play a useful role, and we could be getting more from the existing woodland resource. It is good to see government providing the right sort of policy framework and incentive mechanisms to encourage people to manage woods sustainability. That policy framework includes the felling licensing bureaucracy, because it is seen as a beneficial mechanism to get wood out in a sustainable way as part of a certified activity. That will help.

1198. It is not just about taking wood straight from the forest. For example, wood is taken into a mill, where around 50% is used as solid timber, and the other 50% can be used for other things.

1199. Mr Friel: We are away ahead of Great Britain in that we are almost in balance. Most of our residues are being used to produce electricity and pellets, and it will be very difficult to take another step without doing something else with the Forest Service. We are doing as much work as we can to see whether we can utilise the forest brash as an alternative. However, a lot is needed to make a viable project. We are looking at everything. Every saw man in Northern Ireland is looking at ways in which they can utilise the residue better to generate electricity or to make pellets.

1200. Lord Hamilton: There is not a huge amount of supply to spare in the island of Ireland for the biomass market. I will sound a word of caution about the willow that is used for short-rotation coppice. The Government seem to love it, or they have loved it for a period of time, but if you talk to people in the industry, they will tell you that they will not touch it. There is a need for caution when applying it.

1201. The Chairperson: That is interesting, because there has been a kind of love affair with the willow.

1202. Lord Hamilton: On paper it makes total sense, but the actual practicalities and realities that are involved in the process are very different. It would be a total disaster if too many people saw willow as an alternative land-use methodology and then found out that it does not really add up to what it is sold as. Having said that, in certain specific ways the use of willow is absolutely fine, but one needs to proceed with a degree of caution about it. That is why the halfway house that Stuart alluded to earlier exists; that is, short-rotation forestry, which has the ability to flex the product into the biomass market and also into alternative hardwood or soft hardwood markets. It gives the farmer access to two potential markets.

1203. Mr W Clarke: Is that because willow has a low calorific value? Why is the industry not —

1204. Lord Hamilton: Willow grows naturally in wet, boggy areas, and producing biomass energy involves burning something, so the logic does not immediately add up. Willow absorbs a huge amount of moisture. When it is chipped, it is a very bulky product, so it requires a lot more space than woodchips. It is a far more intricate industry in itself and is not easy to jump into. There are not many willow harvesters in the island of Ireland; indeed, I think that there may be only one or two. Practical issues are involved.

1205. Mr W Clarke: Does that mean that there is a cost to drying it?

1206. Lord Hamilton: Yes. Our climate is very humid, so consideration must be given to ways of drying the willow. The most economic method is air drying. Using energy to dry woodchips defeats the purpose slightly. There are a lot of different things to think about, so you have to be very cautious about saying that the use of willow will mitigate a huge issue for us while trying to get us to hit our targets of planting 3,000-odd hectares each year.

1207. Mr Burns: With our natural environment and weather, what sort of trees would grow better, quicker and be more profitable here in Northern Ireland? You talked about countries in Europe being more into hardwood than softwood trees and having more experience of the exact type of trees that suit their areas. With our climate and great natural resource, people would think that we could easily grow trees naturally. Is that the case?

1208. Lord Hamilton: Yes; we grow softwood trees very well, and some of our growth rates for them are astronomic compared with the rates in other European countries. Our favoured species to grow is the Sikta spruce, because it is very well suited to our climate and grows 10% to 20% faster here than it would in France, for example.

1209. Mr Burns: Why is that?

1210. Lord Hamilton: We have the ideal conditions for it to grow in; that is, high precipitation and a very mild climate. That could change, and depending on how the climate changes, we may have to look for a totally different species to grow. We may need to look at species from the pine varieties.

1211. Mr Burns: As a grower, you have experience and know what species will grow in particular areas, what species will grow quickly and what woodland crop is the most efficient that could be grown here.

1212. Lord Hamilton: Yes, but we will have to start to adapt our methodology, and we do not quite know where we are going. Everyone in the agriculture sector is unclear about the effects of climate change.

1213. Mr Burns: The previous witnesses to speak talked about willow and said that we have a natural environment for growing it quickly. However, people in other places that we visited advised us that you need to have a market for the willow before you start growing it. There is not much point in growing willow if the market is flooded with it. The beauty of timber is that there will always be a market for good quality timber.

1214. Lord Hamilton: Farmers and forestry growers have the benefit of having a market. The big problem with the biomass industry is that although it is well and good having a product to burn, you have to find people who want to burn it, and you have to work out how to get it to them. Hauling wood is very expensive, because a lot of it has very high water content. Therefore, with willow, you want to grow it in an area and utilise it within a short distance of that area.

1215. Mr Burns: Could you not sell the pellets to somebody who will transport and sell them?

1216. Mr Friel: We had hoped to do that at the beginning, but we ended up having to do the marketing ourselves, because, in effect, a new product was created. Therefore, we deliver directly to the customer. We sell bag pellets. We deliver the pellets in 3-ton lots, using our seven or eight farm-food blowers. At that stage, the water is all gone; the moisture content is down to 12% moisture from 55% moisture at the beginning of the process, so there is a big difference.

1217. The Chairperson: Thank you very much for your helpful presentation, Mr Friel, Mr Goodall and Lord Hamilton. We will try to take on board your points.

1218. I reiterate that all witnesses, including you, are invited to join us for lunch after the final evidence session. Moreover, I want to make the public aware that the Committee will plant a tree as a small symbol to contribute towards enhancing forest cover in Northern Ireland.

1219. I invite the witnesses from the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU), Wesley Aston and Gregg Shannon. The floor is yours to make an oral presentation on the Forestry Bill. You are very welcome, gentlemen.

1220. Mr Wesley Aston (Ulster Farmers’ Union): I apologise on behalf of our president, Graham Furey. He rescheduled a meeting for this afternoon, but he discovered that the rescheduled meeting was to be held this morning. He would have liked to have been here to show how seriously the UFU takes the Forestry Bill. I want to put that on record.

1221. The Chairperson: Please pass on our apologies to the president for inconveniencing him and tell him that we appreciate the points that will be made.

1222. Mr Aston: I am the policy director of the Ulster Farmers’ Union. I am accompanied by Gregg Shannon, who is the chairman of our legislation committee, which has been dealing specifically with the Forestry Bill.

1223. Mr Gregg Shannon (Ulster Farmers’ Union): I thank the Committee for asking us to present oral evidence. We have already submitted written evidence; I am sure that copies of that are available to members.

1224. I will outline the basic points as briefly as possible. Since we delivered our written evidence, we have met with the Forest Service. I am sure that the Committee will hear evidence from it next week, when it will outline its views of what we said to it.

1225. The Chairperson: You did not mince your words; you told the officials that the Bill is “draconian". Has your view changed since you met them?

1226. Mr G Shannon: I do not think that there is a mincer big enough.

1227. We understand the reasoning for having a new Bill. In my experience, it is always tidier to create a new Bill than to amend legislation continually and finish up with a row of Acts across the desk. A professional would be required to put all the words together before we know where we stood. A new Bill must last probably another 50 years. Many people would acknowledge that the current legislation is more or less past its sell-by date, and it seems silly to try to make it last another 50 years by amending it. We told the Forest Service that a new Bill would be better.

1228. We used the word “draconian" because we feel that the Bill will not achieve its objectives. The power that the Forest Service wants to have over private land is draconian, and by “private land" I mean more than private forests. Moreover, we doubt whether anybody will willingly invest in forestry under the rules that the Forest Service has proposed. The previous witnesses to speak made a valid point. Although everything that the Forest Service wants to do is in the Bill, our committee could not see any vital new measures. I confess that I was not fully aware of the forestry management requirements. However, that convinces me more that nothing further is needed.

1229. Our specific area of concern is the compulsory acquisition of land. The UFU comes at the matter from the private point of view, but if someone buys land, they will want access to it, and they should not buy it if there is no access to it. The Forest Service’s wanting more land for forestry is a slightly different issue to access, and the service may come up with some better ideas about that.

1230. On the issue of protecting forest trees from damage, the views of the UFU can be explained very simply through the following statement: farmers do what they need to do within the confines of their own boundaries, and they do not go outside of those boundaries. The UFU has considerable worries about other people tramping over farmers’ land, not because it wants to refuse access or to stop them enjoying themselves, but because the issue of public liability has never been properly sorted out. Indeed, the Republic of Ireland tried to sort out that issue recently, but it was no more successful than us.

1231. The UFU is concerned about the matter for reasons of safety and animal health. I would not trust a Forest Service employee any more than I would trust anyone else who is wandering on my land with a gun in their hands to kill a deer or some other animal. Indeed, if he were using a fairly powerful gun, it is likely that he will reach the next townland quite easily after killing the animal. The safety issue is paramount, and there will be other ways dealing with the matter.

1232. Animal health is another issue of concern for farmers. I would not suggest that a Forest Service employee is unhealthy, but before coming on to my land, he could have been somewhere else and carried diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease, brucellosis and TB with him. The Department and the farmer have to carry the cost of such diseases. The less access that others have to farmers’ land, the better.

1233. Reducing risk to farmers is becoming more important, particularly in England where the Government is pushing for the industry to carry more of the costs of disease control. There should also be less risk for the Department, but that issue has been ignored for a long time on the basis that TB would be eradicated in 20 to 30 years. However, if a further 50 years were added, we would still have the problem.

1234. The UFU has similar feelings about the control of vegetation, and it would question why an individual landowner should carry the cost of creating a buffer zone on his own land. After all, he is trying to make a profit in much the same way that the Forest Service is trying to operate. It would be better if they were allowed to do that as well as they could using their own land. Some kind of payment would have to be made to farmers to allow them to do so, but that would only increase the risk of the Forest Service’s own operations becoming uneconomic.

1235. For several reasons, the UFU agrees with the previous set of witnesses that felling licences are not required. First, the bureaucracy that would be involved is huge. Secondly, the Forest Service would require more employees to process the licences. Finally, when people are producing a plan and applying for a licence, it is clear from the draft Bill that it would be very difficult to get a request through that did not involve the replanting of trees. That could stop many people who are entering the industry dead in their tracks. No one will commit themselves to something for 15, 20, 30 or perhaps 100 years that they might be able to cut down but will never be able to get rid of.

1236. There seems to be at least three issues. One is the amenity, which requires fairly large forests and attention to detail, because the growing of the trees is unlikely to provide the economic input for it. Secondly, there is the question of time. It is already acknowledged that forests are a tax-free asset; they become taxable only when they are cut down. That could be in 15, 20, 30 or 40 years, and for hardwoods, it could be 100 years. That is probably right, because nobody has the money to pay an impost on that production in the meantime. However, the people who invest have to think carefully, because they are not investing for themselves or for their sons or daughters; they are probably investing for the third or fourth generation down the track. That means that they forego income in the meantime.

1237. It is difficult to see on a broad scale, although it could be possible on a national scale, how forestry could become a realistic and viable option for farmers and landowners. However, people will have land in certain areas on which planting is always the best thing, but they need the encouragement to do so. That has to be pinpointed on an individual owner basis; it cannot be done through a national plan.

1238. The Chairperson: Thank you very much for that presentation. I will go straight to a couple of points. The opposition to the felling licence seems to be not so much to the licence; it is opposition to the charge and, as you put your finger on, the bureaucracy for which people are then charged. There is a very important yet subtle distinction in that that we picked up from the previous contributors. I do not know whether you agree that it is recognised that there is a regulatory aspect for quality, standard and making sure that the wood comes from a legitimate source and that, therefore, there is a licensing point to be made. However, the issue is opposition. It was said that it would be perverse, which is a very strong and powerful word, to have a charge because it would turn the industry around in the wrong direction. I picked up that point from our previous set of witnesses. Do you agree that the charge is the issue?

1239. Mr G Shannon: Yes. Quite apart from the management system that has to be in place for wood to be traded at all, the other point is that we have existing forests that have been run without felling licences. We do not see why they would contribute, except control, which we do not want. Without a lot of questions being asked, we could remove the option to replant after forests are cut down.

1240. It should not be forgotten that if the Bill achieves the aim of more or less doubling the forestry in Northern Ireland — I will come back to that in a second — the need for felling licences under the system would not arise for 30, 40 or 50 years. If that is the case, why is it being talked about now?

1241. Mr Aston: From a farmer’s point of view, we do not like bureaucracy — full stop. You know that we have gone through the red tape review.

1242. The Chairperson: A suggestion that was made before you came in was that we replace Dundonald House with forests. I am being facetious.

1243. Mr Aston: Yes, you are. [Laughter.] It was interesting to hear the ConFor representatives talk about this earlier, and we do not know the full detail, but if felling licences are required under FSC certification, we understand that that has to be done. However, if it is already in the system, why do we need additional bureaucracy? If management plans are also part of the requirement, using what has been used for forestry certification is better than having to do something additional. Certainly, the cost is the whole issue.

1244. The Chairperson: It is the usual story of gilding the lily.

1245. Mr Aston: Yes, exactly. Certainly, there is an issue about cost. It is not charged for elsewhere, so why should we be charged for it here?

1246. The Chairperson: That is the point. Neither GB nor the Republic of Ireland charges, so we should not have to set ourselves up with another licence charge.

1247. We have talked to all the groups this morning about encouragement to plant. That is, essentially, an incentive to a person to plant. What should that look like in pounds, shillings and pence?

1248. Mr Aston: We obviously want landowners to have the opportunity to plant trees, but it is not the sort of thing that everyone will go out and do. As my colleague Mr Shannon said, everyone probably has a bit of land on which they could plant trees. The biggest problem here is not the level of the forestry grants; at the end of the day, that has to compete with what can be got from agriculture on that piece of land. It is probably the small scale of our farms; the value of land here, which is the highest in Europe; and the extremely long-term nature of forestry.

1249. Farmers in Northern Ireland are not used to forestry; we pull trees out so that we can grow crops and keep livestock. The combination of the size of farms, the price of land and the long-term nature means that forestry is not something that everyone will want to take up. Even if grant levels were raised, there are tax and planning issues to consider. We do not see wholescale forestry occurring across Northern Ireland farms; it is just not going to happen. We want the system to be there for those who do want the opportunity, but we do not see it happening even if forestry grants are increased. I understand that there is an EU maximum on what can be paid in grants anyway, but it is all relative to what can be got from agriculture, the value of land in Northern Ireland and the attachment to that land.

1250. Mr Elliott: Thank you for your presentation. Wesley’s last comment was very interesting. I agree with him; I do not see farmers carrying out widespread tree planting on their land. Small plantations are no good; planting four or five acres will be of no real interest to the industries, especially if it is hard to access and remove.

1251. Compulsory acquisition is one of the most controversial aspects of the Bill for farmers. I am interested in your suggestion about land lease, which may be a way of getting over the issue. The Forest Service tells us that it wants to make compulsory acquisitions only in exceptional circumstances, particularly for access. If that is all that it really wants, land lease is a good idea. I assume that it could work on the basis that there could be a compulsory land lease for a short term. Is that what you are talking about?

1252. Mr G Shannon: Yes; that sort of thing. It should be done on a commercial basis. If I have land locked by yours, I tell you that my trees have to come out in a couple of years’ time, and I am willing to pay you a fee and make good any depredations to get the timber out. I will then not need to go onto your land for another 30 years.

1253. Mr Elliott: Would you have any difficulty with that being compulsory? Quite often, farmers would not allow access, but, if the land was subject to compulsory lease as opposed to compulsory acquisition, at least it would only be used for the six weeks or eight weeks — whatever the timetable — that was required to take the timber out and replant it. After that it would revert to the farmer. Would you accept that? It is something that has interested me; it is a big issue. I have had a number of representations from farmers who have land adjacent to forestry land and are not too keen that the Forest Service could just come in and take it over if it so wished, for access or any other purpose. Leasing may be a way of getting round that.

1254. Mr G Shannon: We would consider that, but the Committee should probably ask the Forest Service how many land-locked pieces of forest there are. If the answer is half a dozen or a dozen, a Bill seems a silly way to deal with the issue.

1255. Mr Aston: Evidence of the need for compulsory acquisition is an issue. That issue aside, we would much prefer that there was co-operation and communication between the landowner and the Forest Service when it requires access to land.

1256. Mr Elliott: But we all would, Wesley. The point is that you will not always —

1257. Mr Aston: That should be the first approach. However, if there were an awkward landowner, I understand that some sort of temporary arrangement would be more preferable to having a compulsory, permanent arrangement. There are examples of that in Scotland.

1258. Mr Elliott: If it were framed in that way, would you be satisfied?

1259. Mr Aston: Yes; it would be much more acceptable.

1260. Mr Elliott: Would you be happy with it?

1261. Mr G Shannon: Happiness is only measured in —

1262. Mr Elliott: Would you be content with it?

1263. The Chairperson: I feel sorry for your wife.

1264. Mr Aston: We could accept it more.

1265. Mr W Clarke: I agree with what Tom said about temporary access. I agree that it should exist. Tom said that, at times, it would be difficult to get the mature timber out of a small hole. Therefore, I see the need for temporary access to allow a farmer who diversifies into timber to be able to get the product out. Most farmers get on with each other and will allow shared access and make good. However, in a situation in which two neighbours do not agree, there must be that temporary measure to allow the timber to be taken out. I do not think that it has to be permanent.

1266. I see a need for the removal of vegetation: for example, where whin or gorse is in close proximity to a forest, there is the danger that it could be set alight and destroy that forest. We are in south Down, which is where the greatest number of fires involving whin occurs. If a farmer refuses to cut the vegetation to create a buffer zone or a firebreak, then someone must come in and do that. Otherwise, there is the risk that a mature forest could be destroyed and hundreds of thousands of pounds could be lost. Therefore, there is a need for the removal of vegetation, but it should be framed as taking account of the dangers.

1267. In relation to incentives and farmers getting a good return on their timber — you mentioned the tax on mature timber — is some sort of mechanism needed whereby the Department would enter into an agreement to buy back the timber for a certain price that both parties could sign up to as being a fair price? Would a guaranteed market price encourage people to become involved?

1268. Mr G Shannon: That is an interesting thought. However, our line is more about the flexibility of using the land for other purposes. If the forest is taken away in 30 years’ time, I am sure that Balcas Timber Ltd or another company would buy it at the commercial price at that time. No one can set the commercial price on the day the agreement is made. Under the current draft, everyone would still have to buy a felling licence and produce a management plan saying why they did not want to replant or change the timber. That sort of thing is a bigger drawback to the whole system than anything else. To be fair to the Forest Service, I doubt whether we would want to put it in the position where it would have to be the go-between guaranteeing to take the timber out. At that time, the market for timber could be flat on its back, and the Committee would be asking why the Forest Service entered into a contract in which it agreed to pay £30 a ton for it. We are talking about such long timescales that nothing perfect can be agreed. Everyone takes their chances.

1269. The point that I was trying to make relates not so much to the tax issue per se but to the fact that when a farmer plants trees, it is unlike any other crop. The turnover does not happen for a minimum of 15 years for short coppice woodland, and it could take 100 years. That is a very long timescale in which to do without income and to be spending money, perhaps every year, doing what is necessary, such as pruning, fireproofing and so on. That is the real problem.

1270. When it comes to the volumes of large estates, such as that of the Forest Service, it is a different matter, because the cost of one hectare of forest is probably not all that much. However, it is still a lot of money given the large volume of hectares. As the forests on such large estates were started perhaps 50 years ago, there is cash flow from which those estates can draw money. However, the individual private forester will not have cash flow to draw on for a long time.

1271. Mr Aston: I want to pick up on the point about vegetation. First, we understand the need for a buffer zone or a firebreak, which, effectively, is what Mr Clarke said. However, why should the landowner be forced to have that buffer zone on their land? Where there is new planting, a buffer zone can be created, or, where there is existing forest, a few trees can be cut down round the outside. Over and above that, there is concern about the stage at which vegetation is considered to be a fire hazard. Farmers do not want whin to get to the stage at which it is totally overgrown. However, in less favoured areas, where, for example, there is heather on land near trees, is that considered a fire hazard and, therefore, will that be controlled? Strictly speaking, if a firebreak is to be created, it should be created on the Forest Service’s land. That is the simplest way.

1272. Mr G Shannon: The impression that I got from the draft Bill was that the forestry division had not really consulted on or taken into account the problems that there would be for the animal health division, the countryside management scheme or areas of outstanding natural beauty. In areas of outstanding natural beauty, a lot of which are bordered by forests, the commitment is to let the gorse or heather grow, and that is the attraction of such areas.

1273. Our members say to us that they are prepared to clear the land on a regular basis to keep the fire risk down, but there is a cost to doing that. They feel that, if the Forest Service wants that done, it should pay them for it.

1274. Mr W Clarke: I have one final point. I believe that the Ulster Farmers’ Union has a big role to play in driving issues forward for farmers. You must be very proactive in getting landowners and farmers involved in forestry, and you need to look at a short-term plan for diversification. Granted, there are planning issues around some diversification schemes, and I am aware that those issues exist, even in this area. In the short term, activity tourism from forestry, such as quad biking, scrambling, mountain biking, pony-trekking and paintballing, provides revenue for the farmer. There is a need for your organisation to drive that forward and to push the Planning Service, as I know that you do on a regular basis.

1275. On the other point, again, it is about being proactive in encouraging farmers into timber production. As I mentioned in the previous evidence session, legislation will be coming down the line from Europe concerning emissions from agriculture — in particular, methane. The farming community will have to offset those emissions by planting more timber. In my opinion, it is do that or get rid of the cows. Instead of waiting until the last minute, when we will be forced by Europe to do something, we should be proactive and say that we will offset emissions by planting timber. If that is done at an early enough stage, there is a marketing opportunity for farmers. They will get a better premium for their produce by saying that they are offsetting those emissions.

1276. Mr G Shannon: You have touched on what will probably be the sorest point over the next number of years, namely, climate change. A researcher in New Zealand calculated the amount of methane that the cows in New Zealand produced and hitched that to the size of the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic. What has not been acknowledged is that the cows in New Zealand are still there in the same numbers; the size of the hole in the ozone layer has halved.

1277. I would not fault the Forest Service, or even DARD, for this Bill. If the calculations were done properly, however, agriculture and forestry, and I would lump horticulture in with them, are about the only industries that can boast a positive annual reduction in CO2. I am not aware of any other industry in that plus position. In addition, the production of methane in the dairy herd has been reduced by about 15% since 1990. That is ongoing research, and amen to that. However, the real issue, and this is a more personal view, is that a very large assumption is made that climate change is due to only man-made activity. The recent research that is emerging, which put the explosive under Copenhagen and was why the Copenhagen climate change conference failed, is showing that CO2 levels rising in the future is practically a load of cobblers. That does not reduce the obligation on anybody in the world —

1278. The Chairperson: Gregg, I will not go down the load-of-cobblers route today, because we do not have enough time to have an inquiry into that. Let us keep to the simple matter of the Forestry Bill.

1279. Mr G Shannon: All that I was going to say was that it is up to us to reduce our output of CO2, and that applies to every industry, including agriculture.

1280. The Chairperson: I would like to make one point about scrambling in forests. As a motorcyclist, I would not recommend that. I can understand trials bikes being used in forests, but trees, bikes and speed usually lead to kaput for the rider.

1281. I thank Gregg Shannon and Wesley Aston for presenting the Ulster Farmers’ Union case. I also invite you, as I have invited all our witnesses, to join members of the Committee for lunch. I am sure that we could deal on a less formal basis with some of the other points that have been raised and that that would lead to a very interesting discussion.

1282. We now move to the final evidence session, and I welcome the representatives of the Countryside Access and Activities Network: Caro-lynne Ferris, Dawson Stelfox and Brian Murphy. I thank you for joining us, and I invite you to make your presentation.

1283. Dr Caro-lynne Ferris (Countryside Access and Activities Network): Thank you very much, Chair. The Countryside Access and Activities Network for Northern Ireland (CAAN) was established in 1999 by the Government as a consequence of one of the recommendations of Northern Ireland’s first countryside recreation strategy. We are an umbrella organisation that brings together bodies that are involved in outdoor recreation. Those bodies include those that participate in outdoor activities, provide for outdoor recreation, own and manage land on which outdoor recreation takes place, and are responsible for outdoor recreation policy.

1284. We are responsible for the strategic development, promotion and management of outdoor recreation across the whole of Northern Ireland, both for the local community and for visitors. Our vision is simply to inspire outdoor recreation. We have a core staff of seven people. Our work focuses on six key areas, but the area of most relevance to the Forestry Bill is product development. Our product development programme seeks to provide facilities, not only those for the local community but those that will increase tourism in the area or lead to the creation of small businesses.

1285. To date, our product development has led to the creation of more than 300 kilometres of walking and canoe trails, 30 kilometres of off-road family-cycling trails and 20 kilometres of off-road horse-riding trails. We have also developed 16 eco-trails linked to the sport of orienteering. We have secured about £4·5 million for our projects from more than 40 bodies and organisations. We have applications pending for about £4 million worth of projects, some of which we applied for through DARD’s rural development programme.

1286. Subject to us securing funding, our development programme includes the development of three coastal canoe trails and the restoration of two old cottages as bothy-type accommodation, one of which is Portmoon on the north coast. We are also trying to develop six multi-use trail systems, which includes providing for horse riders, mountain bikers, walkers and people with accessibility problems. We have provided the Committee with a list of the sites that we are working on. We are also working on a major mountain-biking project. One part of that is in the Belfast City Council area, and we are also trying to develop a world cycling centre at Magheramorne quarry just outside Larne. We are working with the Forest Service, Down District Council, and Newry and Mourne District Council to develop a short-break destination for the forests in Castlewellan and Rostrevor.

1287. Forests are key to the provision of a wide range of outdoor recreational activities. That is particularly pertinent in Northern Ireland given our poor access legislation. As the Ulster Farmers’ Union alluded to in the previous evidence session, the need to access public land in Northern Ireland is exacerbated because of our occupiers’ liability legislation, which is wholly inadequate to protect farmers when visitors access their land. The demand for places at which to take part in outdoor recreation is increasing. Research that we carried out recently for Sport NI and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board has shown that there has been a 152% increase in outdoor-recreation participation since 1995. Consequently, there is a greater demand for venues at which people can take part in outdoor activities. Activity tourism is recognised by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board as one of its winning themes. Therefore, the Government must set an example by opening up its land to an ever-expanding recreational community.

1288. The Forestry Commission in Great Britain has recognised that forestry is not just about trees but that it is also about people. There has been a move away from timber harvesting and towards forestry for rural development, recreation access and tourism, economic regeneration, the environment and conservation. The Forestry Commission recognises that it has a clear responsibility and a statutory requirement to provide for outdoor recreation for the public.

1289. Even in the Republic of Ireland, Coillte, despite its being a commercial company with no obligation to provide for recreation, believes that recreation is its licence to operate.

1290. In Scotland, the Scottish Forestry Strategy highlights the importance of forestry to the improved health and well-being of people in its communities and its contribution to the growth of the economy through the development of competitive and innovative businesses. The importance of forests to Scotland’s tourist industry is further evidenced by the forest tourism initiative.

1291. The Forestry Commission also plays a significant role in addressing problems with the nation’s health and well-being through its Active Woods initiative. The Countryside Access and Activities Network (CAAN) is doing something similar through its own project, Venture Outdoors – Creating Healthy Communities, which seeks to address barriers faced by the disabled, minority ethnic groups and less well-off communities when accessing the outdoors for recreation.

1292. The Forestry Commission is concerned that all age groups in society are catered for. It has been doing much work on nature play by trying to get young people into forests for free play, such as building dens.

1293. The recreational use of forests in GB contributes £585 million to the economy. In Scotland alone, 18 million people visit forests every year and spend more than £120 million. Overall, the social and environmental value of forests in Great Britain is £1·5 billion.

1294. CAAN welcomes the Forestry Bill but believes that it must be strengthened. It should place greater emphasis on the contribution that forests can play in health and well-being, rural development, tourism and economic regeneration. The Bill also provides for a pedestrian right of access. The extension of that right to cyclists and horse riders would bring Northern Ireland legislation more into line with that of GB.

1295. The Bill should be more explicit in its requirement for the Forest Service to provide for recreation. The Bill should make the Department duty-bound to provide recreational opportunities in forests. It is interesting to note that, back in the 1970s, Northern Ireland’s Forest Service was recognised as leading in the provision of recreational activities in forests. Now, however, Northern Ireland is 15 years behind the rest of GB and five years behind the Republic of Ireland.

1296. The placing of a duty on the Forest Service actively to provide for recreation would alleviate our concern that its current approach to developing recreation on its estate is too narrow. It would encourage a move away from the current practice of haphazard commercial development to a much more holistic and strategic approach to planning in forests.

1297. The few recreational developments proactively led by the Forest Service are those that it believes will generate it most income, for example, the high ropes courses. Although we welcome such new activities on its land, that cherry-picking approach fails to take account of the much greater benefit that could be reaped by the local and wider community through proper strategic planning of forest recreation, as was evidenced during a field trip to Dalby forest on the North York Moors.

1298. A recent investment of £4·3 million in that forest resulted in its becoming a regional centre of excellence for sustainable economic activity. Dalby forest now has a refurbished courtyard, a visitor centre, craft workshops, office accommodation, a community resource centre, mountain bike trails, a bike hire facility, a cafe, and a Go Ape high-wire adventure course. It also holds open-air music concerts. As a result, the forest has experienced a 33% increase in visitor numbers.

1299. CAAN strongly advocates the strategic planning of forest recreation. For some time, we have been trying to create something similar to Dalby forest in Tollymore forest park and, more recently, in Glenariff forest park. The facilities at both forest parks fall well below the expectations of local people and tourists. CAAN’s earlier approaches to the Forest Service failed. More recently, however, we received permission from the Forest Service to initiate two studies, potentially paid for by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, to assess the tourism and recreation potential of Tollymore and Glenariff.

1300. Those studies will assess how those forest parks can be enhanced to attract new visitors and, consequently, create new sustainable businesses and employment opportunities, thereby increasing the value of the forests’ assets. We await the outcome of our funding application to the Tourist Board, but it would a huge disappointment were we not successful, given our partnership arrangements for those studies with Down District Council, Moyle District Council, Sport Northern Ireland, the Mourne Heritage Trust, the Causeway Coast and Glens Heritage Trust, and the Tourist Board.

1301. If the Department were to legislate for the Forest Service to have a clear responsibility and statutory requirement to provide outdoor recreation to the public, it would resolve the current difficulties that several councils and other organisations face in finding an appropriate working-model arrangement that is acceptable to the Forest Service when creating recreational facilities on its land.

1302. All recreational facilities, such as mountain bike trails, horse riding trails, walking trails and orienteering trails in England, Scotland and Wales and the Republic of Ireland, are managed and maintained by the Forestry Commission and Coillte. In addition, the Forestry Commission and Coillte take on the liability for those trails and any reinstatement costs should they be damaged by timber harvesting. That is not the case in Northern Ireland, and the current inability to find a suitable working-model arrangement with Down District Council and Newry and Mourne District Council may result in a £2 million mountain bike project for Castlewellan and Rostrevor forest parks not going ahead.

1303. In conclusion, CAAN’s attempts to develop a wide range of activities on forest land has been greatly hindered by the existing legislation, because it has allowed the Forest Service legitimately to shy away from any efforts to develop social and recreational activity on its land. Forests in Northern Ireland, like those in Scotland, provide the greatest potential to provide the largest single suite of outdoor recreation infrastructure. It is also acknowledged that the recreation and tourism potential of some forests can far outweigh the value of timber production.

1304. Therefore, CAAN hopes that the Bill will unlock the potential of Northern Ireland’s forests and radically change the Forest Service’s current responsibilities and priorities regarding recreation and tourism within its estate. We hope that, in turn, that will lead to the Forest Service’s engagement with partners such as CANN to develop its land for the betterment of society as a whole, particularly for local communities and visitors coming to Northern Ireland.

1305. The Chairperson: Thank you for that excellent presentation on a subject that the Committee has wanted to explore for some time. I am glad that we now have the opportunity to do so. Prior to your presentation, I was of the view that the Bill was light on exploring recreation and tourism opportunities. However, from what you said, it is even worse than that. The Bill is, in fact, deficient in those areas. We now have an opportunity to get to the kernel of those issues and to propose evidence-based amendments that will allow us, as you quite rightly said, to “unlock the potential" of our forests. That exciting opportunity could operate side by side with the commercial needs of sectors that need to make money from forests.

1306. You cited the example of Dalby forest and mentioned the potential for Tollymore forest. Will those projects be commercially successful? How viable are they? It is all very well for us to have an ambition to create more recreational opportunities and increase tourism, but, quite frankly, if the proposals are not economically successful and sustainable, they will get nowhere.

1307. Mr Dawson Stelfox (Countryside Access and Activities Network): There is no doubt that those outdoor activity businesses are viable and sustainable. The question and dilemma facing the Forest Service and DARD have centred on investment: who invests, where does the investment come from, and who gets the money out at the other end? That is one of the challenges. The benefit of recreation sites is that they encourage more people to visit, and they stay and use pubs, restaurants and other facilities. That helps the local tourism economy and the local people. However, they are not necessarily the people who invest the money in the first place to help to develop the sites.

1308. We need to consider the greater good and the benefits for the community. There is absolutely no doubt about the viability of the businesses, because the sector is growing. CAAN runs the outdoor activities forum in Northern Ireland. Ten years ago, practically nobody outside of government would have been earning a living by taking people into the outdoors. Only teachers or outdoor pursuit centres would have offered such opportunities. There is now a thriving local commercial private sector economy; we can perhaps detail the number of providers for the Committee.

1309. The Chairperson: Some of the figures that you mentioned are staggering. You mentioned an overall take of £1·5 billion for the rest of GB: what are the figures for Northern Ireland?

1310. Dr Ferris: As Dawson said, the activity forum brings together commercial providers. There are now over 90 commercial providers in Northern Ireland who make a business from providing outdoor recreation.

1311. The Chairperson: Is that a seasonal or year-round business?

1312. Dr Ferris: It is year-round. Last week, in fact, some activity tourism businesses in the Mourne area expressed concern that, if the mountain biking project were not to go ahead in the forest parks in Castlewellan and Rostrevor, they may lose that year-round element of their business. They regard that as a fantastic way to extend their season.

1313. The Chairperson: What is blocking that project?

1314. Mr Stelfox: I will cut to the chase. The provision of recreational activity is something that the Forest Service “may" or “should" do, but it does not do so at the moment. For whatever reason, we have moved from a situation in which the first forest park in the British Isles was developed in Northern Ireland at Tollymore. That was the model for opening up forests to the community. We have moved from a situation of being the leader in that regard to being way behind the game. That is partly because the nature of outdoor activity and tourism has changed. It is not a passive industry; it does not simply involve people going for a walk on a Sunday afternoon anymore. It includes planned activities, most of which have an economic base and involve putting in place an infrastructure and delivering an outdoor experience.

1315. The market has changed. In our opinion, the Forest Service has not kept up with that market and has failed to recognise the changing needs, desires and economic activity. The Forest Service’s attitude towards recreation is wrong, in that it treats it as an optional extra. Even when the Forest Service does recognise its value, it tries to offload responsibility for putting it in place and managing it to other bodies, such as district councils and private operators.

1316. The Chairperson: You think that the Forest Service’s duty should be based in legislation. Are you saying that the Bill needs to be amended to reflect that?

1317. Mr Stelfox: Yes. It should be the duty of the Forest Service to provide for outdoor recreation. That is not to say that it cannot do so in partnership with local bodies, but the duty should be placed on the Forest Service. That is the situation with the Forestry Commission in England. However, it has never been the situation here, and no such provision is contained in the Forestry Bill as it stands.

1318. The Chairperson: You heard from our previous witnesses that there is resistance to the issue of access to the countryside, and the legitimate interests to be protected include the farming stock. How would you legislate around that difficulty so that you would be acting in harmony with those who earn their living from the countryside?

1319. Mr Stelfox: Occupiers’ liability is a major issue in itself, and I will not get into the detail of it. However, we have been speaking to the Office of Law Reform about changes to the Occupiers’ Liability Act (Northern Ireland) 1957 that we consider would address that issue. The main issue with occupiers’ liability is not connected to organised activities for which measures are put in place, and the participants are aware of the risks that they face. Indeed, the judgements on several cases that reached the High Court in England placed the responsibility for safety on those who take part in activities. The risk and resultant claims tend to be at the casual end of the market, where people do not know where they are meant to be or what they are doing and, therefore, take risks unknowingly and unwillingly.

1320. We have made it absolutely clear that landowners should be protected from claims. The UFU is a member of CAAN. We are completely at one with that organisation. In an attempt to get the legislation changed, we have held joint seminars and produced joint documents. Our view is that the legislation should be strengthened to protect landowners. However, in any case, it is not difficult to take out insurance against liability for the sort of events and programmes that we are discussing, and the Forest Service and the district councils are currently negotiating a position on that.

1321. However, rather than being a willing partner to those negotiations, the Forest Service is attempting to pass on that responsibility to the councils, as I can illustrate with a couple of examples, the first of which relates to the new mountain bike trails in Castlewellan and Rostrevor. The Forest Service is asking the councils to take on the liability not only for those new trails but for all trails in the forest, in case someone using the new trail should stray onto a pre-existing one. That is a ridiculous case of the Forest Service passing the buck and placing the responsibility on the councils. The second example is that when the Forest Service clears fell from areas, it insists that the councils reinstate the trails, despite the fact that the trails were initially laid with public money. Again, that does not seem to be in the spirit of providing for recreation.

1322. On a great number of levels, the Forest Service is not in tune with the public need and desire to have more recreation in forests. It is trying to offload responsibility rather than take on responsibilities in that regard.

1323. The Chairperson: There are not enough raw materials for those involved in the business side of forestry. How do you juxtapose their needs with recreational needs?

1324. Mr Stelfox: We are not talking about every forest in Northern Ireland having that level of activity. Some forests are key recreational forests, in particular those in areas such as the Mournes where there is an existing tourism product that could, potentially, be improved. Northern Ireland has a large number of forests, and some of the most commercially active forests are those that are of least recreational interest. Large forests in uninteresting parts of the countryside are commercially more viable because of their scale, and they are of less interest to recreation. The key forests for us include Castlewellan, Rostrevor and Glenariff. In Tollymore, for example, there is no great economic benefit to be gained from cutting down trees. It is expensive, there is not a huge amount of timber, and it does not make the Forest Service a huge amount of money. We suggest that a much better economic return would be achieved for the forests and society by developing Tollymore primarily for recreation, as has happened in some English forests.

1325. We do not wish every forest to be handed over for recreational purposes, but selected forests in areas that attract many tourists have the potential to be used in that way.

1326. Mr B Murphy (Countryside Access and Activities Network): The issue of occupiers’ liability only heightens the need for the greater use of public land for recreation. The district councils and the Environment Agency have taken action, but the Forest Service, which is one of the biggest landowners and has great potential, lags behind and is out of step with everyone else.

1327. Mr Elliott: Thank you for your presentation. I noted that your work focuses on six key areas, and you said that product development was one of the keys to the Bill. I view partnership as another key area. You seem to have reasonable relationships with the Ulster Farmers’ Union and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. It appears that you do not have a great partnership with the Forest Service. Am I right to assume that?

1328. The Chairperson: Will whoever has their phone on please turn it off? It interferes with the recording equipment.

1329. Mr Stelfox: We have worked and negotiated with the Forest Service for many years. Some activities are relatively easy to set up. For example, the family cycling trails at Gosford forest park largely use the existing infrastructure. It is a relatively low key activity that does not involve much change to the existing environment and has worked out OK.

1330. However, when it comes to developing the forests specifically for recreation, there is a gap between the traditional, passive use of forests and actively putting in place recreational facilities that are specifically designed as contemporary tourism activities. The Forest Service has not realised the potential of that gap. We have had difficulties with convincing the Forest Service of the benefits. For whatever reason, the Forest Service focuses on its own responsibilities in its forests, including its revenue and staffing interests, but seems to be unable to consider the wider benefits to society. We get on well with foresters at an individual level, but, at the top level, the Forest Service is not committed to providing for recreation. We have no difficulty working with the vast majority of Forest Service staff on the ground, some of whom are active in recreational activities such as mountain biking, but the policy must change.

1331. Mr Elliott: Your advice to the Forest Service seems to be falling on deaf ears.

1332. Mr Stelfox: Caro-lynne mentioned the grants that are in place for a large mountain biking project in partnership with Down District Council and Newry and Mourne District Council. The signs are that it may not happen and that the money will have to be handed back because of the Forest Service’s failure to agree with the councils on how the management of that project will work. We regard that as a failure of the Forest Service, not the councils.

1333. Mr Elliott: Will you clarify that you are not against the commercial production of timber?

1334. Mr Stelfox: Absolutely. We recognise that, primarily, the forests were planted for that reason and that timber must be cut and replanted. It is a question of marrying that with the recreational requirements.

1335. Mr W Clarke: I declare an interest as a member of Down District Council. I share your frustration about trying to develop the projects with Newry and Mourne District Council and Down District Council. Everyone to whom I speak has serious concerns about the conduct of the Forest Service. The people on the ground are not the problem. I met some of them here today, and they are sound about the whole project. Even the chief executive of the Forest Service is sound, and the permanent secretary has bought into the importance of providing for recreation, as has the Minister. It seems to be a problem with people in middle management trying to get their heads around the fact that things have changed. The legislation must ensure that they have changed for good.

1336. I was one of those who visited Dalby forest and saw the centre of excellence at first hand. Exactly the same thing could be rolled out here. We have everything that Dalby has: for example, the Grange Courtyard in Castlewellan. Although it was the off-peak period, the centre at Dalby was packed. Various businesses were selling local produce, there was a bicycle shop, arts and crafts, and a number of different activities, such as the Go Ape facility and mountain. There was even a chainsaw display going on at the same time.

1337. The Chairperson: I understand your enthusiasm, but I must push you to ask a question.

1338. Mr W Clarke: I am trying to set the scene for you.

1339. The Chairperson: The scene is well set.

1340. Mr W Clarke: I probably feel more passionate about the issue because we are in a tourist area.

1341. When I met members of Newcastle’s tourism forum, they agreed that the Forest Service must deliver because they need year-round tourism. Some of Newcastle’s pubs and restaurants close from Monday to Thursday outside peak hours, yet the town is a top holiday resort. They want to attract tourists throughout the year, but to do so they need the forestry projects to go ahead.

1342. I will get to my question now.

1343. The Chairperson: Good.

1344. Mr W Clarke: How do you want the Bill to be strengthened? We now know the weaknesses. Forests that are situated around towns should be primarily broadleaved, provide recreational facilities and contribute to people’s long-term well-being. Do you envisage that as being a good solution? If so, should softwood from elsewhere be considered for timber production?

1345. Dr Ferris: We are not experts on timber production by any means; our domain is recreation. At present, the Bill is totally deficient in its reflection of all that is happening to better our society: rural development, tourism, recreation, health, well-being, and so forth. As Dawson said, the production of timber is a key part of what the Forest Service does, and we have no problem with that. However, we want the Bill to be strengthened through its inclusion of provisions for the local community and visitors.

1346. Mr Stelfox: The two key elements that the legislation must include are a duty on the Forest Service to provide for recreation — it is not an optional extra, but a duty that it must fulfil — and the right of access to the forests. All sorts of qualifications could be added: for example, shooting rights could be leased in some forests. I attended a highly successful motorbike trial held among the trees in Donard wood. It was extremely scary, but the guys were so good that it was incredible to watch.

1347. Although we are primarily interested in walking, cycling and horse-riding, many other activities can be provided for in forests, including motorised activities and other events. However, good planning and management are required, so that all those activities can take place alongside timber production. In our view, that overall planning and management is not happening.

1348. Mr B Murphy: We do not want to concentrate on activities such as mountain biking. I would not do it, but Caro-lynne does enjoy going down mountains on a bike. The premier trail designer in the world has already designed trails for us in Castlewellan and Rostrevor. He told us that, particularly in Rostrevor, we have a world-class product, not merely a local one. That brings wider benefits to the whole area. We have many plans to develop all the other forests in a holistic way. As a wee boy, I was fortunate to visit Tollymore forest park 50 years ago and, as a city boy, it blew my mind away. Fifty years later, I keep coming back, and I am still blown away by the beauty and majesty of the forests.

1349. The Chairperson: That is a good point, well made. It takes us back to Caro-lynne Ferris’s terminology of unlocking the potential of the forests. If we can produce a piece of legislation that achieves, it would be a huge service to the community. Government exists to assist, rather than inhibit, the community.

1350. I would appreciate your leaving behind a copy of your presentation, as we would like an opportunity to study it at length. Furthermore, if there is anything about which you wish to write to us, or if you want to frame formal proposals about how you want the Bill to be amended, we will take your comments on board. The Committee is at the stage of helping the Department to shape legislation that will prove to be useful. The points that you made today were extremely helpful. Thank you for your presentation, and we invite you to join us for lunch.

26 January 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Pat Doherty
Mr William Irwin
Dr William McCrea
Mr Francie Molloy
Mr George Savage
Mr Jim Shannon

Witnesses:

Mr David Small
Mr John Joe O’Boyle
Mr Stuart Morwood
Mr Michael McCann

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

1351. The Chairperson: We will hear a presentation from the Forest Service officials on the Forestry Bill. I welcome David Small, who is the chief executive, John Joe O’Boyle, who is the director of forestry, Michael McCann, who is from the policy and legislation branch, and Stewart Morwood, who is the director of woodland development and strategies. For ease of reference, we will commence at clause 1 and go through the Bill on a clause-by-clause basis. We will take a break at 12.30 pm and come back at about 1.30 pm, when we will continue to go through the Bill.

1352. Welcome to today’s meeting. This will be the first time that we will have gone through the Bill on a clause-by-clause basis. Given what we are discussing, Mr Morwood, you seem to be the man with the best name here. A folder containing comments on the Department’s amendments has been provided for members, which may become relevant as we discuss each clause.

1353. The clause attracting the greatest attention from the Committee and stakeholders is clause 1, which contains the general duty of the Department. Even with the proposed amendment to express the sustainability ethos more strongly, clause 1 is considered to be too narrow. There is a view that it does not impose a duty on the Department to achieve its afforestation objectives, that it is still too light in respect of maintaining the biodiversity of woodland, and that it fails to detail how the Forest Service will promote sustainable management of all forests, whether in public or private ownership. We would like to tighten up that clause so that it represents those issues and makes that point. I invite the departmental officials to comment on that.

1354. Mr David Small (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): I want to take the opportunity to run through some of the issues that we included in our letter to the Committee last week, in which we proposed a number of amendments. I am happy to start with the issues around clause 1.

1355. We acknowledge that clause 1 is, by far, the most important clause in the Bill: it sets the foundation for the Bill. We were aware of comments from the Committee and from a number of stakeholders that the sustainability ethos was not expressed clearly enough. In our letter, we acknowledged that the Committee wanted to see a more proactive and overt vision for forest expansion and a clearer demonstration of how the Bill will contribute to issues such as biodiversity and climate change. Our proposed amendments to clause 1 are designed to try and address those issues. We propose that clause 1 be redrafted to express more clearly a general duty around the issues of sustainable forestry and forest expansion, and to try to capture issues around biodiversity and climate change. Therefore, clause 1 would overtly refer to biodiversity issues, climate change opportunities, the importance of forest expansion, and to the final duty of sustainable forestry.

1356. The Chairperson: Everyone that the Committee has taken evidence from has said that the Bill offers a huge opportunity that should not be missed. It must address afforestation and the commercial and other opportunities that do not appear to be amplified in the Bill. If the intention on those issues is captured in clause 1, people could be inspired by that, which, I think, is what the Department is trying to do.

1357. Mr Small: I agree. We have listened to the Committee and to stakeholders, and we have looked at the transcripts of the evidence sessions. That aspect came out clearly.

1358. The original general duty in the Bill, as drafted, was to promote forestry. We then went on to define the three aspects of forestry as being economic, environmental and social. We are now proposing that clause 1(1) — the Bill’s opening statement — will capture more clearly and more fully the wider issues around sustainability, forest expansion, and the extent to which forestry can contribute to issues such as biodiversity and climate change. Subsequent to that, we will detail more clearly the three aspects of forestry, with a stronger emphasis on the social, economic and environmental aspects.

1359. It was commented that the structure of clause 1(2), starting off with the afforestation issues and the supply and production of forest products, meant that the subsequent provisions around the environmental and social aspects were subordinate in some way. That is not what was intended, but we will address that to give a more equal footing to the three elements.

1360. As well as a more overt reference to forest expansion, biodiversity and climate change, we also propose an amendment that will put a clear duty on the Department to promote sustainable forestry. We have stopped short of making that a statutory requirement on individual private woodland owners. That was largely reflective of the fact that, in many cases, the size and function of a very small forest area, particularly private woodland, may not offer the opportunities to meet all the requirements of the UK forestry standard, for instance. It also reflected some of the Ulster Farmers’ Union concerns. It made the point that too onerous a burden on individual woodland owners would almost certainly put farmers off, for example, from creating new woodland. We do not want to create such a disincentive. We want to keep woodland creation clearly on the radar for farmers and keep it as a real option for them.

1361. Rather than imposing a statutory duty around sustainable forestry on the landowner or farmer, we are taking the duty to promote sustainable forestry. In the case of grant-aided woodland, we will do that through the grant scheme and the additional leverage that that provides us.

1362. The Chairperson: Would you include recreation in that definition?

1363. Mr Small: Yes.

1364. The Chairperson: Although I understand the social aspect of it, I think that it needs to be spelt out clearly.

1365. Mr Small: When talking about the public’s enjoyment of the land, we mean the enjoyment that they can gain through leisure, outdoor activity opportunities in the forest, recreation and, in particular, tourism.

1366. The Chairperson: Last week, we had a good presentation from Dawson Stelfox’s group. I think that Stewart was there. It spelt out positively some of the opportunities that are going a begging. If the Bill captured that, and did not do violence to the commercial aspect that is also required, it would have some purpose and drive. The Committee felt that that was a positive presentation.

1367. Mr Small: The revised clause that we propose would give us the powers, as well as the broader duty, to try and take out the full potential that forests offer. That includes the environmental and economic aspects, as well as leisure-type opportunities, such as social and tourism-related issues. That is our intention and reading of the clause.

1368. Clause 4 is also important in that respect. It gives us broader powers in relation to how we use forestry land. The purpose of that clause is to enable us to have more activity-based tourism and facilities in the forest. The Forestry Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 does not give us the type of broader powers that we feel that we need to fully take out the potential of tourism opportunities in the forests. The combination of the broader general duty under clause 1, with the clear emphasis on social responsibilities, along with clause 4, gives us all of the powers and provisions that we need to try and realise that potential. That is what we are about. The recreation strategy that we published last July was a statement from the Minister that she wanted to realise the full potential of forests, not only in respect of tourism, but with regard to the wider social benefits, such as health and sporting opportunities.

1369. The Chairperson: Your proposals in relation to the Bill are aspirational; they relate to what you may do. Are you thinking of tightening that to a “shall" do? I know that that puts an onus on the Department and introduces financial issues.

1370. Mr Small: The suggestion has been made that we should assume a statutory duty for tourism. I personally have doubts about whether the Department of Agriculture should be assuming a statutory duty that is a statutory duty on another Department. We could do it for tourism, but we might also be encouraged to do the same for health, education or sport, because those are the broad opportunities that we think the forests offer. We believe absolutely that it is right that we should be making our contribution and facilitating all those potential opportunities.

1371. I am not sure that it is appropriate for DARD to assume a statutory duty for issues such as health, sport and tourism when those duties rest with other Departments. Part of the government approach in Northern Ireland is that each Department should be contributing to the wider objectives of government generally. That is our intended approach. I am just not sure whether we should go as far as assuming a statutory duty for those issues.

1372. However, we are committed to all those wider issues. I was a bit disappointed when I got feedback after the Countryside Access and Activities Network (CAAN) presentation. I accept that Dawson and his colleagues have clear aspirations and hopes for what forests can deliver, and we share those aspirations. I do not think that the presentation fully reflected the changes and the work that we have been doing over the past year or two in publishing the recreation strategy, trying to get the Bill to include the powers we need to help us to realise those wider objectives, and the work that we are doing with the Tourist Board to try to form a much closer relationship whereby together we can identify potential tourism benefits and then work to try to realise them.

1373. We have committed significant time and effort over the past year, and even before that, to try to position ourselves so that we can begin to make those wider contributions. In the context of our recreation strategy, we have been working closely with a number of councils on significant potential recreation products in our forests. Some of those are reaching a more advanced stage, and some have further to go, but we have been working very hard, and I am confident that within the next year there will be very visible evidence of that work beginning to deliver benefits. We have worked with councils, the National Trust and commercial interests, and it is all geared towards realising potential.

1374. The Chairperson: Clauses 1 to 4 cover quite an area. I will ask members for feedback on just those clauses. We will then move to clause 5 and beyond.

1375. Mr Shannon: There is some concern. I declare an interest as a member of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC). The Committee received a submission from that organisation, and from other organisations. I joined this Committee when the Forestry Bill was starting, so I probably arrived at a fairly early stage with regard to contributions. The BASC put forward the idea — and it was not the only organisation to do so — that there should be a forum for stakeholders. Does the Department accept that that should have happened? The idea is that it is all very well for the Forest Service —

1376. The Chairperson: Jim, that is for later. Let us address clauses 1 to 4. We will come to the issue of stakeholders.

1377. Mr Shannon: Excuse me. I brought that up because I thought that it was part of the introduction, of where we were going, and setting the scene.

1378. The Chairperson: It does come up later on.

1379. Mr Shannon: Well, OK, if it comes up later on.

1380. With regard to clauses 2 to 4, what does the Forest Service understand or mean by the term “sustainable forestry"? We must be clear about what we are trying to achieve. A number of bodies are concerned about what that term means for everyone. It must be clearly defined so that when the legislation is in place, “sustainable forestry" is understood by everyone who has an interest in it so that they know what the Department is trying to achieve. I am not sure whether you have been doing that in your response, particularly paragraphs 4 and 5. What consideration did you give to those organisations that made the point about sustainability?

1381. Mr Small: There are two issues there. One is the definition of “sustainable forestry", and the other is how we address the issue of sustainability in the Bill.

1382. There are definitions of “sustainable forestry". ‘The UK Forestry Standard’, for example, has a clear definition of the term. We do not have that to read out to members, but it tries to capture a vision of forestry managed in such a way that the benefits that forestry can deliver are deliverable today, and that those same benefits can be delivered in the future, for future generations. It ensures that we do not take all the benefits out of forestry today and lose the benefits for the future. It requires appropriate levels of felling and restocking and appropriate management. It is also about delivering the wider benefits that forestry offers — economic, environmental and social. That is why we refer to those three pillars; they are caught up in the definition of sustainable forestry. It is about delivering the full range of benefits that forestry offers, and ensuring that our management approaches can deliver those same benefits in the future.

1383. The second issue we have talked about a bit already. We have spoken about trying to address more clearly the sustainability aspects of the Bill. We accept that that is not adequately covered in the current draft of the Bill. We propose to address those sustainability issues much more clearly and overtly in an amended clause. Our proposal is to place a clear commitment or duty on the Department to promote sustainable forestry and afforestation, and also to address such issues as biodiversity and climate change more clearly in the opening clause of the Bill. That will effectively address the sustainability obligations and requirements which were intended to be addressed by the current draft of clause 1, but are not expressed overtly enough. Our intention is that the revised clause will refer to those items much more clearly.

1384. Mr Shannon: At paragraph 5 of your document, you say that:

“felling licences will be another tool to ensure sustainable management."

1385. That is what you say. There will be compensation liability attached to any refusal or similar, is it not important that everyone understands how sustainable management will work? I am sure that you have given some thought to this — and I do not mean to be disrespectful — to the contributions that a number of bodies have made. If you say that felling licences will be a tool for delivering sustainability, and if there is a compensation liability as well, we must be sure that we are not at odds and that we understand one another. I am not sure that that is happening. My comments are intended to be constructive and I am not trying to be smart.

1386. The Chairperson: Absolutely.

1387. Mr Small: We feel that the new felling regulation system that we propose, alongside the grant aid system that we operate, will mean that, in any area of forest at felling stage, we will have an opportunity to intervene and ensure that sustainability requirements are met and the requirements of good forestry practice are delivered. Our intention is not to stop felling taking place; it is an opportunity to have a look at the restocking proposals and satisfy ourselves that they deliver sustainable forestry and are consistent with good forestry practice.

1388. Mr Shannon: Some of the bodies are saying that they do not believe that the concept of sustainability has been worded correctly or properly enshrined in this legislation that the Committee will, at some stage, endorse. Is it not important to have all the opinions on that in agreement early on, and have that concept defined at an early stage to the satisfaction of everyone?

1389. Mr Small: I agree, and I agree with you that that is not done in the current draft of the legislation.

1390. The Chairperson: You are going to come back with more details.

1391. Mr Small: We will be providing the Committee with —

1392. The Chairperson: On the issue of felling licences, we will have a much more detailed discussion, probably after lunch, which we are expecting to take at 12.30 pm. That is a huge issue and it has huge implications.

1393. Mr W Clarke: I welcome the promotion of forestry as a means of mitigating the effects of climate change. It is essential that that be at the heart of the Bill. I have argued for it since the beginning of the process of the Bill, which has to take us through another 30 or 40 years, say. Therefore, we need to be forward-thinking.

1394. In order to use forestry for flood management, for biomass opportunities, even for green procurement opportunities, and to offset agricultural emissions, it is essential that mitigation of climate change be at the heart of the Bill. Its absence was a major weakness in the original proposals.

1395. As regards other benefits for recreational tourism, health and well-being, they have to be built into the duty at the start of the Bill. We need to state clearly that that is what we are about. I do not want any wriggle room. Although it might be an aspiration —

1396. Mr Small: It is more than an aspiration. I genuinely believe that we are beginning to deliver.

1397. Mr W Clarke: I agree. I recognise that Forest Service has taken major steps forward into new territory, as I call it, to work in partnership with other organisations, which include councils. That is a sea change. Without going off the subject, sometimes new expertise is needed to deliver. Forest Service needs new thinking on delivery of some of those aspects. Reference to climate-change mitigation is needed at the start of the Bill.

1398. The Chairperson: If the recreational aspect were firmed up, would that have financial implications for the Bill? It could change dramatically.

1399. Mr Small: Yes. If there were a clear statutory duty on us to provide recreation, it would have significant financial implications for the Department. The approach that we have taken during the past year or two has been to try to find a mechanism by which we can realise potential for recreation, leisure and other benefits.

1400. The Chairperson: Last week, Caro-lynne Ferris and Dawson Stelfox from CAAN made a powerful submission. They pointed out that if the Department gets the Bill right, its money-generating aspects have incredible potential. They referred to Dalby Forest as an example. If that comes into it, even if it is potential or aspirational, it has to be covered by the Bill’s financial implications. We need to be aware of that and open to it. When you bring back your detailed proposals, you need to have considered that as well. It would be terrible if we were to produce an aspirational Bill without the finances to meet those aspirations.

1401. Mr Small: That has a lot to do with how the wider recreation and tourism opportunities that the Bill might facilitate are delivered. Our approach has been to ensure that we make forest available for those wider opportunities and put in place the infrastructure that allows such opportunities to become more viable. That means that the Department has to readjust some of its own forestry activities to make way or facilitate new development.

1402. Our approach has been to attempt to secure operating partners in the commercial sector. Therefore, rather than Government delivering a facility that could be delivered by the private sector, we will seek to find a commercial operating partner. We have successfully done that for the high trees adventure facility that we hope to open in Tollymore this year, where we have entered into and now operate a relationship with a private company. That has worked well. It is a good model.

1403. We are in the middle of developing a commercialisation strategy, the focus of which is to commercialise the assets that forests have to offer. We will explore commercial opportunities for tourism, hotel development, holiday accommodation development, and caravan and camping provision. Again, we believe that the private sector can deliver on those types of proposals.

1404. The Chairperson: We heard this morning that there are proposals to cut £94,000 from your commercialisation work.

1405. Mr Small: I am not sure —

1406. The Chairperson: Gerry Lavery was here giving us the finances. It will actually affect a number of posts.

1407. Mr Small: That refers to a delay on our part in taking forward recruitment. We have agreed to delay the recruitment of a commercial director — and one or two other posts that are unrelated to our commercialisation work. We are aware of that issue, and we are simply slowing down the process slightly.

1408. We have had some positive soundings from that commercialisation work, from the market test work that we have been doing, and we believe that the private sector will be interested and will be willing to make some of that investment.

1409. The other approach that we have been trying to follow is identifying operating partners with the likes of district councils. District councils already have an obligation to deliver tourism, recreation and leisure in their areas. We are taking an offer to them and saying that we have an infrastructure that is very attractive for tourism and recreation products, and they may be interested in working with us. The model that we have been developing with two or three organisations so far, including district councils and the National Trust, is looking very positive.

1410. We believe that councils are willing to commit as an operating partner with us. We already have an agreement in principle from the National Trust for a significant multi-purpose recreational product at Castle Ward, and the National Trust will assume the operating costs of that product. We will facilitate it happening in the forest environment. We will adjust our operations to ensure that it can happen, but, where possible, we are avoiding costs falling to Forest Service. That has been working quite well, and, with a stronger commitment in the Bill, we can continue to pursue commercial models and operating models with other partners, such as the RSPB, the National Trust and district councils. We can work together with them to get products on the ground. If we can do it that way, the financial implications that the Bill might have will be significantly reduced.

1411. The Chairperson: It is a shared partnership. A supplementary point to the legislation could be that further financial considerations could come in at a later stage. However, you need to be aware that the Bill needs to be amended to allow for that supplementary point.

1412. Dr W McCrea: I apologise for not being present to hear your submission. The amending of the general duty is welcome, and I am sure that other changes can be made. Many people still believe that the proposed definition of “sustainable forestry" is too restrictive. There is a general duty on the Department to ensure that biodiversity is promoted, protected and enhanced. However, might the use of the words “as a means of mitigating climate change" not result in biodiversity and conservation enhancement only being carried out when it benefits climate change mitigation? Surely there is a question over whether that would be implemented in an environmentally sustainable manner.

1413. Mr Small: Perhaps the wording is not capturing the full extent of what we are proposing.

1414. Dr W McCrea: It is vital that the wording captures what the Department means, because the legislation is what will stand at the end of the day.

1415. Mr Small: I understand that.

1416. The Chairperson: Can you bring back a different form of words for that?

1417. Mr Small: Our intention is to capture more clearly and overtly the biodiversity commitments. I hope that biodiversity will feature as a clear reference in the Bill.

1418. The Chairperson: You would not want it to become a handicap.

1419. Mr Small: I do not think that it will. Good forest management will offer all sorts of biodiversity opportunities and climate change opportunities, particularly for forest expansion, which is something that we are committed to.

1420. Dr W McCrea: Surely you want to limit it simply to “mitigating climate change", and not have the overarching purpose of this being in the heart of the legislation? A number of organisations have raised issues in respect of a proper definition of “sustainable forestry". What does that mean? I think that it is right to say that RSPB and other organisations have included a number of things that they believe should be included in the definition. We have to be careful that it means what we think it means. When changing legislation, clarity is vital. Will you look afresh at the definition and see whether those issues are included? I will not waste time by going through the issues again; you have the list, or if you do not I will forward it to you.

1421. How do you see the Department and the Forest Service promoting the sustainable management of all forests, both in public and private ownership? How will you ensure that all forests are managed in a sustainable manner? It has come down to language, but if that is what you think it means, it has to be done. How will the Forest Service take that forward?

1422. Mr Small: There are a number of critical points in forest management. The first is the establishment of the forest, and the second occurs when felling and restocking are due to take place. Those are two occasions on which we can see the benefit of the Department having some intervention. In instances where we grant-aid forests, we are actively involved in the forest design, the initial planting stages and throughout the growth and development of that forest for about 10 or 15 years.

1423. The next key stage occurs when the forest is due for felling — or thinning — and restocking. The felling licences will give us an opportunity to have a view of how satisfactory the plans are and how consistent they are with good forestry practice.

1424. We acknowledge that there will be some smaller areas of forest that are not grant-aided. We propose that we will have a duty to try to promote sustainable forestry in those circumstances. The felling licences will allow us some intervention at a later stage. We were conscious of some of the comments and concerns that were expressed by the Ulster Farmers’ Union about imposing a duty on every woodland owner. Where a woodland owner is in control of an area of one or two hectares, sustainable forestry means something different; there is less scope in respect of the level of sustainable forestry that can be achieved. There will not be so many benefits in respect of social, recreational and environmental opportunities in a very small forest block.

1425. Rather than impose a duty on an individual to sustainably manage his or her forest, we propose that we will take the duty to promote. That would mean sending out literature and trying to make people aware of the benefits of sustainable forestry. Alongside the benefits of the felling regulations system, we believe that we have a comprehensive system for the vast majority of forest cover in Northern Ireland, be that forest that we manage or forest that is grant-aided. We will be able to carefully monitor the extent to which forests are being sustainably managed, and we will be able to promote and encourage sustainable forestry in small areas of privately-owned forest.

1426. Mr Stewart Morwood (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): A number of months ago, I had the privilege of making a presentation to you in relation to a consultation on the UK woodland assurance standard, which is the Government’s approach to sustainable forest management. It encompassed several documents, and it provided a definition of the term and how it was arrived at. The consultation also indicated how the Government and the forest authorities intended to monitor sustainable forest management within a country context. It was accompanied by a suite of guidelines, and the subject matter is quite a tome. It includes issues relating to forests and water and forests and soil, which deal with the basics, and it looks at the social aspects of forestry in a sustainable context by dealing with forests and people. It deals with forests and climate change, and addresses the wider issues of climate change. Although it is difficult to encompass those definitions within a piece of primary legislation, I feel that we have quite an extensive policy document and one which has been widely consulted on throughout the country.

1427. Dr W McCrea: Will the sustainable forestry duty reflect the Department’s aspiration — which, of course, should be more than an aspiration — to double woodland cover in Northern Ireland?

1428. Mr Small: The revised Bill will put a clear duty on the Department to promote forest expansion. The way in which we do that will be largely through incentives, the availability of grants, and the availability of good information about the benefits of converting to forestry. As the Committee knows, at the moment it is proving very difficult to persuade farmers to make that conversion.

1429. Dr W McCrea: Promoting forest expansion could mean promoting it only a little. However, the Department’s vision was much wider than that: it was to double the coverage.

1430. The Chairperson: That target is in the Programme for Government.

1431. Mr Small: There is a public service agreement target in the Programme for Government covering the past two years and the year that we are coming into. There is also a wider aspiration, which we have included in our strategy, to double forest cover over a 50-year period. That is very ambitious. As you know —

1432. The Chairperson: Realistically, you are nowhere near that target.

1433. Mr Small: No.

1434. As the Committee knows, we have recently increased the rates of grant incentives available and, over the next year or so, will be monitoring the response to that and the applications that we receive. However, we acknowledge that that is an area in which we have to invest a lot of time and effort to try to identify what could make a difference. In a lot of cases, we are dealing with agricultural land. Therefore, we have to identify what could make a difference in convincing farmers to make the conversion to forestry. A lot of work has to be done so that we can be satisfied that the current levels of grant incentives, which we have just increased, are adequate and appropriate. Also, other methodologies have to be looked at and considered as to how we promote, encourage and communicate with landowners and farmers, and the extent to which we are able to engage with them. At the minute, we do not have much capacity to do that, and that is something that we are trying to address.

1435. Mr Savage: I would like to see more trees being planted than are currently.

1436. Are the trees sprayed at any time for protection against fungi, and does the Department have a nursery for its own trees?

1437. Mr John Joe O’Boyle (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): We no longer have a nursery to grow our own trees. That was discontinued two or three years ago, largely for economic reasons. There is more opportunity now to acquire the necessary range of plants through competitive purchasing arrangements. We did have a tree nursery, but its commerciality, as with any nursery, depended on growing trees on a scale much larger than what was necessary in Northern Ireland. The economics stacked up in favour of purchasing plants. We now have contractual arrangements in place with other organisations to grow plants and, in effect, to purchase them on the open market under contract.

1438. Some chemical protection is required, especially when trees are being put into the ground, and, in particular, when trees are planted on sites that have been clear-felled and replanted. Trees planted on such sites can be attacked by beetles or weevils, and, therefore, be damaged and require replanting.

1439. A number of approaches are taken to prevent those trees getting eaten or damaged at the planting stage. Some of the methods involve dipping the plants in a chemical up to and above the root collar and planting the trees. That provides protection for that season and into the next season. Once you get the trees past that first season of growth, they tend to be sufficiently resilient, and they do not need further protection. That is the general approach and the most common type of application that is needed in afforestation.

1440. The Chairperson: Thank you. The meeting will adjourn until 1.30 pm. We will resume with clause 5, which deals with the controversial issue of the compulsory acquisition of land.

1441. Committee suspended.

1442. On resuming —

1443. The Chairperson: Gentlemen, you are very welcome back. We will move on to clause 5, which relates to the compulsory acquisition of land. Clause 5(1) states:

“The Department may acquire compulsorily any land which it requires for the purposes of, or in connection with, the carrying out of any of its functions".

1444. I know that you want to hear the Committee’s views on the issue, and you have indicated in your submission that the Minister is minded to bring forward appropriate amendments to address the Committee’s concerns. The concern that we have picked up from practically everyone who has spoken to us on the issue is that the power is too far-reaching. Although there is a recognition that there is a need to get access to land, it seems that there are two ways to skin a cat in this instance, and there might be a better way of addressing the issue.

1445. Representatives from the Ulster Farmers’ Union suggested that temporary compulsory leasing of land might be an option, with the requirement to reinstate the land afterwards to the original landowner. That is one of the more concrete suggestions to have been put to us on an alternative form of words. However, it has raised the hackles of many people who have given evidence to the Committee.

1446. Mr Small: We were aware of that proposal. One or two groups aside from the UFU have mentioned the idea of having a temporary arrangement through which we could gain access to the forest, do what we want to do and then reinstate the land back to the owner. However, in almost every circumstance, we foresee that we will be taking timber from that block of forest for 15 or 20 years. We cannot envisage a situation whereby we could operate a temporary arrangement; we cannot envisage needing access to a block of forest once and then not needing access again for 10 years.

1447. The other disadvantage is that, in many circumstances, we will already have some form of access. For example, we may have acquired a country lane with the site 30 years ago, but the lane is simply not wide enough or the structure is not strong enough. Therefore, we would propose to make adequate arrangements that would allow us to do the construction work. That would mean widening or strengthening the lane, or both. Having invested public money to do that, we would find it a bit odd to then pass it back and have to renegotiate the whole thing in five years’ time.

1448. In most circumstances, we would need to take timber from the forest on a regular basis. The arrangement would not operate every month or every second month, but rather every year. Having made the public investment to make the access appropriate and adequate, we would then want to reuse that access the next time round.

1449. The Chairperson: Such things affect the next generation and can cause hardship if land is being vested and taken forcibly. There are instances in County Antrim, County Armagh and Craigavon where land has been claimed and then never used for the intended purpose. Ultimately, will it be passed back to the original landowners? Surely there is a mechanism that would allow for such an option. People can mount a challenge in court, and, if land becomes surplus to government requirements, they can argue that it should be offered to the original landowners at a reduced rate. However, in order to avoid protracted legal costs, could that option be included in the Bill, but not necessarily as the only option for the way forward?

1450. Mr Small: We will look at that. It is something that we have discussed. Could there be circumstances in which a temporary arrangement might satisfy our needs where we need access only once?

1451. The other example that I was going to mention was a tourism product that would work well in a particular piece of woodland or forest but where the access is simply inadequate. In those circumstances, temporary access would not work; we would want the product to be successful, which means that there would need to be permanent access. In those circumstances, we would need something that would allow a more permanent arrangement to be put in place.

1452. The Chairperson: If it were going to be a commercial success, I imagine that the landowner would want to be part of that and would want to share in the commercial viability of it.

1453. Mr Small: If we were taking a 1 m or 2 m strip along an existing laneway, that would be subject to normal land valuation, and the landowner would benefit to some extent. We were very aware at the outset, when we had our initial discussions with the Committee, that there was a concern that we would be seeking to acquire large areas of land to plant new forest.

1454. The Chairperson: It is essentially access that you are talking about.

1455. Mr Small: Yes, it is. We do not want to take large areas of landowners’ land for that purpose.

1456. The Chairperson: That is why I think that you should look at a way leave provision, which would allow the landowner to recognise what the land would be used for, and, if there is a rate to be charged for going over the land, they would get some sort of payback.

1457. I just think that the issue leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths. It makes people wonder what the Department’s attitude really is. In my view, most of the representations that we have received have been based more on suspicion than anything else, and, ultimately, the Department must counter that. I believe that there is a way to do that.

1458. Mr O’Boyle: We are already dealing with circumstances in which we need to improve access to existing woodlands for the purpose of timber harvesting. We can deal with a lot of those cases by making arrangements with landowners to purchase a piece of land. Our first port of call would always be to seek to purchase land through an ordinary land transaction. What we are trying to do in the legislation is give ourselves a position to fall back on should those efforts fail.

1459. The Chairperson: The fallback position is so wide-ranging. Clause 5 allows the Department to acquire compulsorily any land for the purposes of:

“carrying out of any of its functions under this Act."

1460. You could look at the clause another way and restrict the function to access to land only, but that would close down the other options that we discussed earlier.

1461. Mr Small: We recognise that the wording in the clause is too broad. That message has come through loud and clear. The Minister accepts that that is where we are, so she is minded to agree some form of amendment. We want to hear the Committee’s views on what that amendment might be.

1462. Mr Savage: Do negotiations often take place with landowners when the Department needs to get access to land?

1463. Mr Small: Our starting point would always be discussion and negotiation with the landowner to try to find some agreed way of dealing with an access problem. We would only rarely be contemplating the use of this power, because it would be quite difficult to use. It would be administratively burdensome. We would not want to go down that route unless we absolutely had to. Our first approach would always be to seek an agreed solution to a problem.

1464. Anecdotally, colleagues have told us of cases in which we have negotiated a right of way that we have been satisfied with. In one case, we carried out quite expensive work to get the access route up to the required standard, and then the landowner put up an 8 ft gate at the start of the laneway, frustrating our efforts. In that case, we had been stuck for months and were unable to do anything.

1465. Mr Savage: I do not like the bit about powers of entry. Someone could come along and throw their weight about, and the Department would get right of access whether the landowner liked it or not.

1466. Mr Small: Schedule 1, which sets out how the power would operate, is very much taken from the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, which is regarded as the cornerstone of vesting arrangements.

1467. Dr W McCrea: There is no doubt about it; the Department is adopting a draconian measure. I do not think that, in practice, it would be a fallback position. Clause 5 clearly states that the Department:

“may acquire compulsorily any land".

1468. Chairman, you mentioned people’s suspicions, and given what has happened in the past, people have good reason to be suspicious. There is too much water under the bridge where the Department is concerned. In fact, I would regard this clause with more than suspicion.

1469. To be frank with you, gentlemen, you are talking about landlocked sites and sites with poor access, but the Department should have shown more foresight when using those sites in the first place. It seems that the Department was very short-sighted in the past and is now adopting a draconian measure that could be used or abused. I strongly oppose the Department being given this power. The Department should make genuine efforts to negotiate such matters, bearing in mind that it carried out planting in the first place. It could even use its own land for access purposes.

1470. Mr Small: We would always seek to do that; even in preference to negotiating an agreed settlement, we would take the easier option of using our own land. We are talking about when that is not possible and when negotiations have failed. I take the point that we should have had better foresight 40 years ago.

1471. Dr W McCrea: It is not just about what happened 40 years ago. It has happened down the years since then. Time-limited leases could be considered as an option, but not compulsory acquisition of land, which I oppose strongly.

1472. Mr Irwin: The wording of clause 5 is wide-ranging, as the Chairperson said. The widening of a laneway by 3 ft or 4 ft is a different issue, but how do you differentiate in that situation? The clause must be amended in a way that provides clarification. It is much too wide-ranging as it stands.

1473. Mr Small: If we thought that the Committee could accept a version of the clause that narrowed it down to access for the purposes of the Bill, we could think about appropriate wording and seek advice.

1474. The Chairperson: John Joe put his finger on it earlier. The clause could be worded in such a way that compulsory acquisition was the ultimate last resort, having gone through the initial offer to purchase — if that was appropriate — and discussions on partnership work on the land or other commercial aspects. If the situation drifted to the point that the needs of the Forest Service were being frustrated, that option could be available.

1475. Mr Molloy: I agreed with what others have said. The problem is that there has been a history of suspicion that the Forest Service does not want to deal with its neighbours’ access requirements. It works both ways, and the history has been bad. The question is one of negotiating access: the Bill’s mention of the obstruction of officers, the compulsory acquisition of land and the threat of prosecution sets alarm bells ringing in all directions.

1476. Mr Small: I can understand why. As I said, however, we picked up a lot of the basic procedures governing compulsory purchase from the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972, which is regarded as the cornerstone of vesting arrangements. Nevertheless, I can appreciate why a landowner would immediately step back on reading that kind of language.

1477. Mr W Clarke: In a similar vein, the wording in clause 5 scares a lot of people, particularly landowners:

“The Department may acquire compulsorily any land".

1478. There are benefits to farmers if access and laneway infrastructures are improved. However, you mentioned tourist provision, and there is the issue of renewable energy from wind farms. Who will take on the maintenance of access infrastructure? Will the Forest Service maintain that for evermore?

1479. Mr Small: In a situation whereby we acquire land, either by negotiation or compulsory acquisition, we will assume all related maintenance responsibilities into the future. Our desire would be that we could use the provision to help us to gain access for the full range of our functions, including the tourism product as well as taking timber out of the forests. There could be a site that is perfect for an attractive tourism product, and it would be unfortunate if we could not secure that because of a need for a 1 m strip along the access route to make it acceptable for access purposes. Our starting point would be negotiation with the landowner as part and parcel of something that we are trying to achieve. That would be done with advice from Land and Property Services about valuation and other matters.

1480. The Chairperson: You have heard the general thrust of the argument, and there is scope for you to come back and present a series of options that we can talk about.

1481. Mr Shannon: I do not intend to repeat what everybody else has said. However, I am very concerned about granting unlimited power. There must be ways to stipulate that such powers can be exercised on either an occasional or a temporary basis. You said that you were going to reword the clause, so it would be very helpful if you would come back to us on that. If unlimited power is given to a Department, at some time it will flex its muscles by doing what it wants and refusing to do what we want. That is my concern, and we are all saying the same thing. I am happy with occasional or temporary power, but definitely not unlimited power.

1482. The Chairperson: We now move to clauses 6 and 7. Sorry, Jim, did you want to say something further?

1483. Mr Shannon: I do not want to prolong the discussion, but, unfortunately, I was not present when the Committee was discussing the Department’s recommendation that clause 1 be redrafted to express explicitly a general duty to promote sustainable forestry and afforestation as a means of mitigating climate change.

1484. The Chairperson: In one sentence, Jim.

1485. Mr Shannon: It may not be one sentence, but I will try to be as brief as I can. I am not against the idea, but why should it be changed to sustainable forestry and afforestation as a means of mitigating climate change alone? Why could it not be changed to sustainable forestry and afforestation for recreational use, or for social, economic or environmental reasons, which are the three critical factors? I shall not labour the point, but I think that it is important to recognise that many people feel that there are other factors on which to focus.

1486. The Chairperson: Your point is well made; I appreciate that you had to make it, but it has also been made by your Committee colleagues.

1487. Turning to clause 6, “Inquiries, Information, etc.", and clause 7, “Incidental powers", it has struck Committee members and a number of those who gave evidence that the Department does not appear to be starting from a factual base of knowing its inventory; in other words, what is actually there. Is there any possibility of including in the Bill an obligation on the Department to carry out an annual or biannual inventory of what it manages and controls? In presentations to the Committee, our inability to establish a factual base for some of the arguments caused confusion.

1488. Mr Small: We recognise that issue. We have very good information about the forests that we manage and the woodland that we have grant-aided, which includes some information on the species and size of trees. That accounts for the vast majority of woodland in Northern Ireland. However, we recognise that there is private woodland that we have not grant-aided and about which our information is less comprehensive, and a number of stakeholders have raised that issue. We accept that that information gap exists, so, in order to address the issue, and as we stated in the paper that we presented to the Committee last week, we propose to include a statutory obligation in the Bill to develop and maintain a woodland inventory.

1489. The Chairperson: Keeping a general inventory is one thing, but it has been suggested to us that producing an inventory to include forest type, composition, condition, biodiversity condition and the area that a forest covers would not place too much of a burden on the Department. Properly segmented information would act as a touchstone; people would know what we have and would be able to measure and target growing programmes. That is a fair point, and it was made to us by a host of groups with widely differing views, whether commercial or recreational.

1490. Mr Small: We propose to include a commitment in the clause to conduct and maintain a Northern Ireland woodland inventory, which would cover forest type, size, cover and species. Extending the inventory to cover biodiversity issues, flora and fauna issues, timber quantity and so on would place a significant burden on the Department.

1491. The Chairperson: I do not think that it would be a burden. It would be incredibly helpful to have that information. In essence, it would involve adding only an extra couple of columns to your research.

1492. Mr Small: We are aware of similarly comprehensive research that was carried out some time ago in the South, and it proved to be a very resource-intensive piece of work. Such effort must be balanced against the value that it delivers.

1493. Mr Morwood: We estimate that there are 86,600 hectares of woodland in Northern Ireland, of which the Forest Service has about 60,600.

1494. The Chairperson: That is my very point: you estimated. You have put your finger on the problem; we just do not know.

1495. Mr Morwood: I use the word “estimate" in almost pure statistical terms. When I measure an area of woodland accurately on a map, I will indicate that I have an estimated area. In other words, I have not, as an individual surveyor, gone out on that day with the appropriate equipment and surveyed that piece of ground from scratch.

1496. The Chairperson: When you apply the powers in clause 5 to a piece of land, you had better be more accurate than that.

1497. Mr Morwood: That is why I use the word “estimate". I could say that I measure it from a map and determine it, but those measurements will, effectively, always be an estimate. Forest Service has good information about its own estate. As David said, it has good information on approximately 15,000 hectares of grant-aided woodland. We have less good information on another 10,000 hectares. It is older information.

1498. The Chairperson: Stewart, you are an expert in this. Is it possible to use a geographic information system (GIS)?

1499. Mr Morwood: Yes, we use that for all the woodland areas, both our own and private. We want to use existing data sets that are available on GIS systems to add to our information about woodland, particularly private woodland. I think that Northern Ireland Environment Link made that point to the Committee at the evidence session in Castlewellan. We are aware that a lot of work has been carried out by a variety of organisations: the Woodland Trust has prepared an ancient woodland inventory, and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency has carried out work on designated woodlands in areas of outstanding natural beauty, and in some areas they have good coverage.

1500. The Chairperson: Would it not be more effective to put all that together?

1501. Mr Small: That would be our intention.

1502. Mr Morwood: It is a case of pulling that together.

1503. The Chairperson: Maybe you could come back to the Committee with a cost estimate. Bringing those sources together may cost considerably less than you think.

1504. Mr Small: We are happy enough to pull all that data together, as Stewart suggested. To go further, to the point where we need to go on site to inspect every site and every area of woodland, would be just too much.

1505. The Chairperson: Given its support for that type of thing, the Committee would be more than happy to make a bid to the Department, if you could provide a costing as part of the annual budget process or the invest to save initiative. That is something to which the Department could direct resources. However, the Committee cannot do that unless it sees a costing.

1506. Dr W McCrea: Deciding to make an inventory is a step in the right direction. However, that is only a first step, because it requires only the total woodland area to be recorded. That is not acceptable and is totally insufficient to meet some of the other requirements.

1507. If you are to measure something against, for example, the targets in the Northern Ireland biodiversity strategy or the UK biodiversity action plan, or if you are to gauge biodiversity conditions, you need to start with something factual, otherwise you cannot produce a factual report. That would be essential for targeting grants, for example. Without a proper, meaningful and up-to-date inventory, you get only half the story, and that is unacceptable.

1508. Mr Small: We are committed to having an inventory that includes forest cover and the type of woodland, which includes things like species. On-site inspections would be required to get detailed information on the quantity of timber — production forecasts, the levels of flora and fauna in a particular area.

1509. A woodland inventory that covers the area of the woodland, the type of woodland and the species, along with our existing information on forests, will give us a very comprehensive woodland inventory which comes very close to the kind of inventory to which members aspire. Paragraph 10 of the letter that I sent to the Committee last week referred to an inventory of forest cover. That is not explained well enough in my note.

1510. Dr W McCrea: If the Department comes back with actual proposals, we will look at them.

1511. The Chairperson: That would be helpful.

1512. Mr Shannon: My question concerns the inventory.

1513. The Chairperson: That is good.

1514. Mr Shannon: I will come straight to the question, because that is what the Chairman always coaxes me to do. What does the Department intend to do with the inventory? Does the inventory give you rights of access to all land — not just forestry, but land adjacent to forestry? If so, is there potential for confrontation between officials and landowners? The inventory will include land that you do not own. The purposes of the inventory must be ascertained, and we need to be completely aware of how the Department will use it.

1515. Mr Small: From our point of view, one of the inventory’s primary purposes will be to give us a better baseline from which we can measure further forest expansion. There has been a criticism that there is no real point in setting targets for forest cover if we do not know precisely what our baseline is. The inventory will give us much better information and enable us to move forward confidently. The inventory itself will not give us powers to go onto land.

1516. Mr Shannon: No?

1517. Mr Small: No. However, clause 6 provides us with a range of powers to gather information on forests and take forward inquiries.

1518. Mr Shannon: Does it give you right of access, David? That is the question. Are you seeking that power? I think that you are.

1519. Mr Small: That is already in the initial version of the Bill, in clause 6.

1520. Mr Shannon: There is potential for all sorts of confrontation between the Forest Service and people who own land on which there are trees. Do you not see the potential for confrontation?

1521. Mr Small: I see the potential, but it would become an issue only if we wrongly managed or abused the powers. The powers of entry are set out in clause 31: “an authorised person" is able to enter land “at any reasonable time" to exercise the Bill’s functions. We will only use the powers where we believe that it is absolutely necessary and justifiable. We have no desire to go on to private land unreasonably or unnecessarily.

1522. The Chairperson: We will discuss powers of entry in detail later.

1523. Mr Shannon: We need to have that debate.

1524. The Chairperson: I understand your point, Jim.

1525. Mr Shannon: The Department has said that it has no intentions to that effect, but the legislation will give it that power.

1526. The Chairperson: We will return to that point.

1527. Mr Small: The point is related to the inventory issue, but it is set out in clause 31.

1528. The Chairperson: Jim, we have form on restricting powers of entry in the Diseases of Animals Bill.

1529. Mr Shannon: This legislation gives the Department power to control deer on adjoining land.

1530. The Chairperson: That is a relevant point, because we will be looking at the control of deer when we discuss Part 2 and the protection of forest trees from damage.

1531. Mr Small: Are we going to look at clause 7?

1532. The Chairperson: I beg your pardon. Clause 7 deals with incidental powers:

“7. — (1) The Department may do anything which appears to it to be conducive or incidental to the discharge of its general duty under section 1(1).

(2) In particular the Department may —

(a) enter into arrangements with other persons or bodies;

(b) form, or participate in the forming of, a body corporate;

(d) appoint a person to act as an officer of a body corporate. “

1533. At its meeting in Castlewellan last week, the Committee heard about the possible appointment of a type of forest ombudsman or the creation of an expert-based independent committee of people who could provide views and impartial advice. Is the Department thinking in those terms? Does this clause serve another purpose?

1534. Mr Small: We are considering that issue. Our letter to the Committee last week refers to it at paragraph 29. We are aware that stakeholders have raised the issue. We are looking at what the function of such a group would be. What might that type of mechanism deliver that we cannot secure form our other stakeholder arrangements?

1535. The Chairperson: The only push back that we have got is not so much about the idea of having people do that, but about what they would do. How wide would their powers be? If we can define those points, we can have a healthier discussion about the exactitudes. At the moment, it is a proposal, but one that could, ultimately, confer wide-ranging power.

1536. Mr Small: Is that in relation to the proposal from stakeholders to establish a type of advisory organisation?

1537. The Chairperson: Yes.

1538. Mr Small: At the minute, we are not convinced of the need for that. When we find ourselves dealing with an issue on which we need advice, we already have mechanisms whereby we can go to a range of organisations to discuss that issue and to seek views.

1539. For example, in developing our recreation strategy, we established a dedicated stakeholder forum with representation from, among others, district councils and recreational organisations to help us to consider the issues that we were dealing with. As we considered forest expansion, we established a dedicated stakeholder forum. That is a mechanism that we want to continue so that we can take views from expert organisations on a particular issue.

1540. The Department questions what another, permanent, free-standing organisation or stakeholder forum could deliver that we cannot currently secure from our existing procedures. I am concerned about establishing a quango that must meet twice a year, when we can secure that same advice and information from existing mechanisms. We are considering that as a possibility, but, at this stage, we are not immediately convinced that it would offer any added benefit or merit.

1541. The Chairperson: Moving to Part 2 of the Bill —

1542. Mr Small: Sorry, I am not sure whether we have dealt with clause 7.

1543. The Chairperson: All right.

1544. Mr Small: Among the criticisms of clause 7 was about the broad, sweeping powers proposed in clause 7(1):

“The Department may do anything which appears to it to be conducive or incidental to the discharge of its general duty".

1545. A lot of comments were received from stakeholders and Committee members about that power being too broad. In my paper to the Committee last week, I proposed that we would seek to narrow and reduce that power, which, we accepted, was too sweeping. We instead propose to insert a reference to “our general duty" under which we could use the very specific powers provided in 7(2)(a) to:

“enter into arrangements with other persons or bodies"

1546. with whom or which we might be able to deliver a recreational product or an environmental project, but taking out the broad sweeping power of clause 7(1). Essentially, we propose to remove “do anything" from clause 7(1) to narrow those powers.

1547. The Chairperson: Are members content with that proposal?

1548. Mr W Clarke: That would be welcome.

1549. Mr Elliott: I broadly welcome it. For clarification, would that change narrow the powers down to issues around forestry and woodland? There was a clear concern that the power provided in clause 7(1) was much too wide, because it could have incorporated wind farms and other operations outside forestry and woodland.

1550. Mr Small: Can you repeat that, Tom? I missed your first —

1551. Mr Elliott: Sorry, David. I am trying to get clarification. I assume that the reference to clause 1(1) within clause 7 covers that, and that it will be narrowed to operations only for forestry and woodland, or in relation to forestry and woodland, and not matters outside that. I am talking about recreational activities and forest and woodland, but I am not talking about different business ventures.

1552. Mr Small: We want to be able to use the power in clause 7 to enter into an arrangement or partnership on a recreation-type product. The other area in which we know that the Forestry Commission in England, Scotland and Wales has sought to use that sort of power to enter into a partnership or body corporate is that of wind farms and renewable energy. In such partnerships, the Forestry Commission is faced with the option of a straightforward lease, under which a piece of land is leased to a wind company which could go on to make millions of pounds, or, as a possible alternative, establishing a body corporate with the company. In that case, a joint venture is taken forward, whereby the taxpayer will reap a better return. We want to retain that and to secure maximum return from the forest estate for the taxpayer.

1553. Mr Elliott: How does that fit with clause 1(1) and the duty to promote forestry?

1554. The Chairperson: Hopefully, the Department will come back with a redrafted clause 1(1).

1555. Mr O’Boyle: Looking at the market sounding and commercialisation issues, we can clearly see that the companies involved in, for example, the generation of energy through wind farms, are energy companies. Those companies have significant interests in things like biofuel, the collection of wood material and so on. The partnership that we might be involved in, or the body corporate that might be formed, would create an energy company rather than a wind farm company. There would be quite a dovetail between that company’s efforts and interests in biofuel and its efforts and interests in generating energy through wind farms.

1556. Mr Small: I think that Tom is questioning the extent to which that kind of arrangement would be consistent with the Department’s general duty under clause 1.

1557. Mr Elliott: From what I can see, the intention is the same, but the wording is slightly different. The intention is still, quite clearly, to develop that duty on a much wider basis than just forestry or woodland production.

1558. Mr Small: We see forests as an asset that can deliver against renewable energy targets, whether that is through biomass, wood fuel or wind energy.

1559. Mr Elliott: To be absolutely fair, there is no correlation. I know that Mr O’Boyle tried to make some link, but there is no correlation between wind farms and forestry production.

1560. Mr Small: But there is an obligation on us, as a Department, to secure maximum generation of revenue from the asset, which is a public asset. Forestry is an area in which we could, potentially, do that, and in a way that is consistent with the key DARD objective of wider renewable energy targets.

1561. Mr Elliott: The reality is that the intention of the Bill is to move much further outside woodland and forestry areas.

1562. Mr Small: Only within the forest environment.

1563. Mr Michael McCann (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): There is a power, under clause 4(1), for the use and development of forestry land for “a purpose other than forestry", and that could include soft energy development uses. Clause 4(2) provides the power to enter into a partnership for that purpose. As you say, clause 7 concerns the general, traditional forestry powers under clause 1(1) and the power to enter into partnership arrangements to deliver that duty. We see an anomaly, in that the power to have a body corporate should, logically, support the use of forestry land for other purposes.

1564. Mr Small: Tom is probably right. Part of the Bill’s purpose is to secure and maintain sustainable management of our forests. The Bill aims to expand forests, create more forests and ensure that we deliver the full potential of forests, including sport, health, recreation and renewable energy opportunities.

1565. Mr Elliott: There is a fourth aim: things and parts outside forests and woodland. Mr McCann is nodding his head. The Bill clearly has a further intention. I was not here during the discussion on clause 4, and I have written down some questions about that issue.

1566. At the moment, I am not saying that I oppose or support the Bill, because I want to be clear about the intentions of the Department and the Forest Service. You have now accepted that the Bill is about more than just forestry and woodland and that it is about other business opportunities that may lie within the portfolio of the Forest Service.

1567. Mr Small: Do you mean land outside the forestry land that we own? Do you mean open land outside our forest boundaries?

1568. Mr Elliott: I am talking about land that Forest Service owns; I do not care whether or not there is woodland cover on it. Your remit on forestry and woodland has, so far, been fairly streamlined, and other groups have been critical that you have not opened it up for sporting activities, social activities and tourism. You are now saying that you are prepared to go further and promote other things outside the remit of forestry and woodland cover. You mentioned wind farms. The reality is that there is no link between wind farms and forestry.

1569. Mr O’Boyle: I am not making the link. I am saying that a market exists and that renewable energy companies are interested in developing wind farms and are interested in the biofuels that forests grow. That is their combined interest in our estate.

1570. Mr Elliott: You are even talking about setting up a new limited company. I cannot remember what term was used —

1571. Mr Small: It is “body corporate".

1572. Mr Elliott: I want clarification that the Bill has more intentions than our current narrow view.

1573. Mr Small: It is appropriate to try to achieve renewable energy through our forestry assets.

1574. The Chairperson: Think about those points and come back with a definitive position on intent.

1575. Mr Elliott: I would prefer them to be open and tell us if the Department intends to move into the area of wind farms. Thereafter, we can make a judgement.

1576. Mr Small: In the Forestry Commission’s experience, these opportunities add greatly to the overall viability and economics of running a forest operation.

1577. The Chairperson: You will not have any opposition. People want to know what we are supporting or not supporting.

1578. Mr W Clarke: I welcome the approach that we are taking. We are back to the issue of climate change, the Programme for Government and increasing the use of renewable energy. There are vast swathes of forest land that are owned by the Department which must be used for that purpose. The forestry sector in the South has gone down that road and has worked in partnership with energy companies. That provides a dividend to the taxpayer. I welcome that approach; it is covered in clause 1 in regard to climate change.

1579. Mr Elliott: When the Forest Service seeks more forestry cover, the question will arise as to why it is not planting forestry or woodland instead of creating wind farms.

1580. Mr W Clarke: Although the area of land in question might be owned by the Forest Service, it might not be suitable for planting. I understand that that is the sort of land that will be looked at.

1581. Mr Small: I was about to make that point. A lot of this has to do with scale; we propose to use a tiny amount of our overall estate.

1582. The Chairperson: Have you finished clause 7?

1583. Mr Small: Yes; we will comment on the issues that have been raised.

1584. The Chairperson: I know that I have been eager to get clause 7 over with; we are definitely finished with it.

1585. We will now consider clauses 8, 9 and 11, which deal with the protection of forest trees from damage. The Department intends to amend those clauses to effect the following changes: excluding the Irish hare from clause 8; removing the list of wild animals protected under schedule 5 of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 from clause 8; making the taking of animals the first option, as opposed to the killing of animals; redefining the protection of trees and woodlands to apply to all woodlands of 0·2 hectares or more; and retaining the right to enter adjoining land to kill deer but restricting charges to other woodland owners as opposed to landowners. I think that that is the way in which the Department intends to take that forward. Do you have anything else to add?

1586. The industry has spoken to us, and it is generally supportive of those clauses, especially with those alterations in mind. However, we received some communication from the British Deer Society (BDS), which is opposed to the clauses, and which insists that giving Forest Service has carte blanche to cull deer at any time goes beyond its previous pronouncements that it wishes the Bill to promote sustainability. The BDS has offered alternative solutions to the proactive management of the deer population, once Forest Service has established what that population level is. Those are the comments that we have received to date. Do you wish to add anything?

1587. Mr Small: You have captured correctly the areas where we have proposed amendments. During our last presentation to the Committee, I think that it was Mr Shannon who raised the issue of the terminology “at any time" in clause 8(3). As well as referring to the closed period, he referred to night-time killing and the opportunities that that would create for us. We accept that, and we intend to remove any opportunities for night-time killing. That is not something that we would ever intend to do. We intend to remove the protections under clause 11 that facilitate that. That is a further clarification of that point.

1588. On the purpose of clauses 8 and 9, it is not our desire to cull deer for the sport of it. The purpose of clause 8 is simply to enable either us or a private woodland owner to protect forests. Research shows that unless any deer problem is dealt with, the woodland affected will suffer significant damage. The purpose of clause 8 is to enable the sustainable management of forests by taking adequate controls to protect them. Woodland owners are obliged and required to do that, and clause 8 is about facilitating that.

1589. Clause 9 takes it a step further. A lot of private woodland covers too small an area to enable deer protection within that woodland boundary. In those circumstances, deer that move between areas of woodland or adjacent land, whether it be our woodland or private woodland, can cause severe damage to young woodland in particular. Therefore, where it is not possible to control deer in a forest area, clause 9 puts in place a facility whereby we can tell a landowner that there is a deer-roaming problem on his land and that he can either deal with that for us or help us to deal with it. The landowner can do that through any means that he feels are appropriate. For example, he can contact someone who is capable of going onto land and controlling deer.

1590. However, if the landowner fails to do that, we are then faced with a choice: let the woodland be destroyed or take action to try to avoid that. That is the purpose of clause 9, and that is what we are trying to achieve. We do not need the power to cull deer just for the sport of it. The purpose of clauses 8 and 9 is to help to us protect woodland. We accept the Committee’s concerns that it would be wrong in those circumstances to levy a charge on the unfortunate landowner who happens to have deer roaming on his land. We accept that, and that is no longer our intention. The primary purpose is to protect forests.

1591. Mr Shannon: There are several issues, but the first one that I will address is that of the Irish hare. The terminology should be absolutely correct so that we do not have other issues arising in the future.

1592. You will be aware that there is a large population of Irish hare. There is also a large population of European hare. An additional issue is interbreeding, which results in hybrid hare. To give an example of what I mean, there is a particular duck referred to as the ruddy duck, which is the Casanova of the duck world. Any duck will do, as far as a ruddy duck is concerned, and that destroyed a particular breed of duck.

1593. The legislation needs to be very clear on protections for the Irish hare, the European hare and the hybrid hare. As there is a different Department involved, what are your thoughts on the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill? I have an opinion on hare, and it is my opinion only.

1594. Mr Small: We have discussed our intentions and cleared those provisions with colleagues in the Department of the Environment (DOE) who are dealing with the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill. We are trying to keep our handling of issues such as that of the Irish hare and protected species under the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 consistent with what is being done with their Bill. We have tried to maintain that consistency where possible. I think that we have done so, and DOE colleagues have indicated that they are content with our proposals.

1595. Mr Shannon: In controlling the European hare and the so-called hybrids —

1596. Mr M McCann: Even when we wanted to exclude the Irish hare, the wildlife section of the DOE raised some questions, and told us that its habitat species plans and so on were sufficient to protect all hare in Northern Ireland, including the Irish hare. We wanted to take a lead and show that we would give overt or specific protection to the Irish hare as a species in its own right. That was the principle that we worked on. On the issue of ducks, the provision excludes birds of all types from the definition of “wild animals".

1597. Mr Small: Our understanding is that the Irish hare is protected.

1598. Mr Shannon: Does that mean that the European hare is not protected?

1599. Mr Small: No, and neither are hybrids.

1600. Mr Shannon: Just so that we understand — I am not being pedantic — is it important that the terminology of each species is worded in such a way that clarity will be given? The Deputy Chairperson mentioned clarity earlier, and it is important to have that clarity. We are not just talking for the sake of it; it is important that we get the wording correct.

1601. The Chairperson: Is there an opportunity that you could take advantage of in having a conversation with BDS about the points they raised regarding the deer culling strategy?

1602. Mr Small: We would be happy to meet with the BDS to discuss any thoughts that it has. We have a particular objective in the clauses that we are including, and that is protecting forests. Recent ROI research has examined the issue of deer control and how important it is to ensure that there is adequate control.

1603. Mr Morwood: Recent work produced in the Republic highlighted problems resulting from significantly increased deer populations in particular areas and the damage that that does to woodland and to general biodiversity, including associated problems with public health and road traffic accidents and so on. One issue that the research outlined is that an overreliance on recreational hunting alone may not be the most appropriate way of controlling populations to desirable levels, and that other means of protection — perhaps more concerted means of control of deer numbers — would be required. So they indicated that recreational shooting has a role, but it is certainly not the only means of controlling deer populations to acceptable numbers.

1604. Mr Irwin: I live in County Armagh, which is known as the Orchard County because a lot of apple trees are grown there. In orchards, sections of the trees are wired to prevent wild animals from peeling or paring the bark from the tree. Peeling the tree damages it. Is such a device used in forestry to prevent trees from being damaged by wild animals?

1605. Mr Morwood: Yes. We build tree shelters to protect trees from rabbits, hares or deer. Shelters to protect trees from rabbits may be only a couple of feet in height whereas those offering protection from certain species of deer may have to be more than two metres high and therefore need accompanying supports.

1606. As we protect individual trees in a young plantation, we plant, or recommend planting, approximately 2,500 small trees per hectare. As one applies protection — a two-metre high shelter with a stake — to each one, the costs of such work become disproportionately large. Although it is technically possible, it is a very expensive and uneconomic way of establishing plantations.

1607. Mr Irwin: I understand that with respect to deer, which necessitate a very high level of protection. However, smaller animals, such as hares, would require very little protection.

1608. Mr Morwood: Hares probably necessitate a tree shelter of around 1·3 metres in height. A hare, standing on its back legs, can do a tremendous amount of damage to a tree which is sheltered by only one of the little spiral guards that one sees occasionally around trees. Hares will happily truncate a row of newly planted trees, and if there are no shelters of significant size, they will do that on a regular basis and prevent growth. The expense of putting a 1.3 metre shelter with a stake on 2,500 stems per hectare is a disproportionate way of dealing with a risk posed by a relatively few hares.

1609. Mr Shannon: I must ask you about paragraph 17 of your paper, which is about the protection of trees. The protection discussed includes commercial woodland as well as amenities, and I wonder why that is the case. I ask the question because some people are happy for animals to roam among their trees. It seems that this amendment will give the Department what I believe to be undue influence or control, even to the point of ignoring sporting rights. I make these comments so that we can get the Bill right and avoid problems in the future. My concern is that this amendment gives excessive influence to the Department and the Forest Service in particular.

1610. You mentioned that you had been in contact with the DOE about the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill. You are giving people sporting rights over land; and one of the key issues in the Wildlife Bill concerns sporting rights. How can the Department have that right? Should you not draw a parallel between commercial woodland and amenities? Their purposes are completely different.

1611. Mr Small: I am not sure that we are doing that. You are referring to clause 8(2)(a), which refers to areas of forestry over 0.2 hectares:

“which were used for the production of commercial timber".

1612. When we read that again, we felt that it was too narrow. Our desire is to protect all woodland, not just woodland that is grown for commercial reasons. Clause 8 allows the woodland owner, who could be a private owner, to protect his woodland either inside the woodland boundary or on adjacent land that he also owns. Clause 8 relates only to land owned by the woodland owner, and the suggested broadening of the clause will allow a woodland owner to protect not only woodland that is grown for commercial reasons but woodland that is grown for biodiversity, environmental or social reasons, and that even in those circumstances, he could control and protect his woodland.

1613. Mr Shannon: If he wishes to do so?

1614. The Chairperson: Does that answer help, Jim?

1615. Mr Shannon: If he wishes to do so?

1616. Mr Small: Yes: on his own land.

1617. Mr Shannon: Therefore, whether he wishes to do so or not, he has that option. Do we need to enshrine that in the legislation?

1618. The Chairperson: It is not compulsory.

1619. Mr Small: We are giving the woodland owner the powers to protect his forest.

1620. Mr Shannon: Would that have any infraction on sporting rights?

1621. Mr Small: No, it would apply only to their own land.

1622. The Chairperson: It is not an obligation.

1623. Mr Small: It is not an obligation, and it is only in respect of their own land.

1624. Mr Shannon: Clause 9(2) covers situations in which the Department suspects that trees are, or are likely to be, damaged. Why is the phrase “likely to be" included? Some of the correspondence that the Committee received from various bodies asked whether clause 9 is necessary.

1625. Mr Small: We believe that it is necessary. The clause is intended to deal with circumstances in which the control of deer cannot take place inside the forest boundary. If the area of woodland is very small, there will be no scope to shoot deer in that area. A clear sight is needed to pull the trigger. In some circumstances, it may not be possible to do so in woodland, which means that open space is needed. Only in those circumstances would one need to go on to adjacent land to get a clear sight. The clause is necessary, partly because of the fact that the nature of deer is to roam.

1626. The use of the phrase “likely to be" is to try and avoid damage. If damage has already occurred, it may be too late to do anything. A separate piece of research demonstrates clearly that, when immediate action is not taken against a problem with muntjac deer, whole areas of woodland can be lost very quickly and significant damage can be suffered. The provision “likely to be" is there because we need to make a judgement on whether we feel that the woodland, either private or belonging to the Department, is at risk. We will want to use the powers where we believe that woodland is at risk.

1627. If we use the powers wrongly, if we were to make a poor judgement or if it were later proved that there had been no risk to the trees, we could be subject to judicial review because we would have used the powers wrongly. If we use the power, we need to demonstrate that we have done so in an appropriate and reasonable manner and that we have taken the right judgements.

1628. Mr Shannon: Your briefing paper and your answers indicate that it may be necessary to go on to adjoining land to get “a clear shot" at deer, as I think you put it. Is it possible that that could lead to an infringement on adjoining landowners who have sporting rights and stocking potential on their land? Some consideration must be given to landowners on that matter. Will you consider that? I definitely see an anomaly in the system that must be addressed. If it were addressed now, we could do away the possibility of concern later down the line.

1629. Mr M McCann: Clause 9(5) allows the Department, if it detects a problem, to serve a notice on the adjoining landowner requesting, as set out in clause 9(5)(b), that steps be taken within three months of the date of the service of the notice. If the adjoining landowner were to have shooting capabilities or shooting rights, he could take action under that section, and the Department would not need to get involved. Clause 9(5) is supposed to give scope to people who have the wherewithal and means to remedy the damage or likely damage.

1630. Mr Shannon: Are you saying that the Department would give the landowner the opportunity to take action before it would do so?

1631. Mr McCann: Yes.

1632. Mr Shannon: If that is part of the legislative change, it goes a long way towards addressing the issue. It is important that the owners of adjoining lands have that opportunity.

1633. Mr Morwood: It is worth bearing in mind that our objective is not the eradication of the deer population; it is to manage deer numbers so that damage is kept to an acceptable level. We acknowledge that there will always be damage to plantations; we are not concerned about that. Our objective should not be at odds with someone on adjacent property who has an interest in shooting and has sporting rights.

1634. Mr Small: In fact we would concede that as a possible means of controlling the numbers of deer.

1635. Mr Morwood: It would actually be a more desirable situation. However, we acknowledge that, once the level of damage to the plantation becomes unacceptable, such that the plantation cannot regenerate, that creates a problem for the Department. That is when there may be a potential conflict with the sporting owner of the adjacent land who may have an interest in shooting as many deer as he possibly can. There has to be an appropriate balance. Our objective is not to reduce the level of damage to the plantation to nil. That is an unrealistic expectation.

1636. Mr Savage: You have just mentioned the issue I was going to ask about; the shooting of deer. I will not go into that now. You also mentioned hares and trees. Are there types of trees that hares do not damage?

1637. Mr Morwood: To my knowledge, hares seem to be fairly general in their tastes, particularly in the spring time when they are more active. Whether it is a species of broadleaf tree or some conifers, hares will go along a row of trees and decapitate them. There does not appear to be anything that they specifically dislike. If pushed, I would say that some of the more resinous conifers might put them off more than a broadleaf tree.

1638. The Chairperson: They do not stick to the roof of the mouth.

1639. Mr Molloy: I have just one question. I know that we are talking about wild animals, but what restriction would be placed on a farmer who is rearing deer close to a forest area?

1640. Mr Morwood: Farmed deer give rise to a completely separate set of circumstances: they are not considered to be wild animals.

1641. The Chairperson: We will now move on to discuss clause 10, which makes provision for the removal or destruction of vegetation on adjoining land. This falls into the issue of suspicion that we were discussing earlier. There are things that the Department could do with Crown land, by establishing protecting buffer zones, for example. Why should the Department take power on to itself to force others to do this? Is there anything you wish to say before taking questions from members?

1642. Mr Small: I would just like to reinforce the purpose of the clause, which is to enable either the Department or private woodland owners to protect their forests or woodlands — in this case from fire as opposed to wild animals. Our experience is that forest fires constitute a real risk to woodlands.

1643. The Chairperson: What is considered to be uncultivated land?

1644. Mr Small: I am sure you will keep me right, but the kind of uncultivated land that we are talking about is land that has whin bushes, gorse or perhaps heather. There is an issue concerning heather, which we will discuss later.

1645. The Chairperson: I would say that most of the glens of Antrim are uncultivated.

1646. Mr Morwood: It is rank vegetation that is not cultivated.

1647. Mr Small: Uncultivated land is land, which, in the past, has presented a threat to areas of woodland and forest. We have suffered major losses in the past. The purpose of clause 10 is to try to put some mechanism in place that we can use to prevent fire from spreading to an area of woodland. We propose to ask the owner of the adjacent land to take whatever action is necessary to remove the vegetation.

1648. The Chairperson: Is it possible for you say that you will only do that when you have exhausted creating buffer zones on your own land? At that point, will you ask other landowners to do the same, if there is still a need to do so?

1649. Mr Small: In some circumstances, due to where forests have been planted, we will have planted to the boundaries and may not have opportunities to create buffer zones. We propose to request the landowner to take some action to remove the risk. If the landowner chooses not to do so, or is unable to do so, we intend to remove what we regard as the potentially dangerous vegetation.

1650. There is no intention to recover costs from the farmers. We are not adding a burden of cost recovery: that would be inappropriate. However, we propose a mechanism that will allow us some means of protecting the public asset, which, in some circumstances, means dealing with vegetation that we regard as constituting a fire risk.

1651. The Chairperson: If work is carried out on the uncultivated land, will that have a knock-on effect on a single farm payment claim? It may be construed that the land has become cultivated or worked in some way.

1652. Mr Small: It might have a positive benefit.

1653. Mr Morwood: I think that it is unlikely. We would be, effectively, creating a strip of land on which the vegetation cannot burn. It is unlikely that it would be described as cultivated land in the agricultural sense.

1654. The Chairperson: Yes. However, the farmer might face a difficulty if he says that the land is uncultivated. On inspection of the land, it is possible that some bureaucrat will say that it is not uncultivated land, and the farmer will be penalised, lose his single farm payment or have it withheld or challenged.

1655. Mr Morwood: I can imagine a circumstance where the landowner is getting some payment in respect of heather moorland, and a strip of that moorland subsequently becomes absent. We would have to consider such a circumstance carefully in relation to that landowner’s single farm payment.

1656. The Chairperson: A landowner’s application for the single farm payment can be challenged or rejected on the basis of a narrow strip of land, so it would be useful to have certainty that this would not pose additional burdens or problems.

1657. Mr Small: It is possible that the uncultivated strip is land for which they should not be claiming single farm payment.

1658. The Chairperson: Your proposal might affect those landowners, because their land might be altered to become cultivated land.

1659. Mr O’Boyle: There are potential issues. For instance, a farmer might be getting paid under a countryside management scheme for heather management. If a piece of that land were removed, that may well prejudice the area that he is entitled to claim for. There are some issues around that that we need to look at.

1660. The Chairperson: Will you come back to us on that matter?

1661. Mr O’Boyle: I do not think that it has a bearing on the single farm payment; it is probably more a countryside management issue.

1662. The Chairperson: It would be helpful to get clarity.

1663. Mr Elliott: There is a definition of uncultivated land in the current legislation, and I think that you should tie in with that. Mr McCrea and the Committee Clerk might remember a presentation that we received from Ian McKee. He fought with us for a long time over the definition of uncultivated land, for the benefit of a statutory rule that went through the Committee over two years ago. It is laid in statute. It is not just heather land; it is something like land that has not been drained, reseeded, ploughed or improved for something like a period of 15 years. [Interruption.]

1664. The Chairperson: Have you pressed the off switch, Jim?

1665. Mr Shannon: I did turn it off.

1666. Mr Elliott: It is not just the heather land.

1667. Mr Small: I appreciate that.

1668. Mr Elliott: You need to tie into that, because it may have consequences, particularly for the countryside management scheme process. It is perhaps more than the single farm payment.

1669. Mr Small: I think that you are right.

1670. Mr Elliott: My second question is about the buffer zone. In the letter that you sent us last week, you said that the power would be used sparingly. However, you will appreciate that what is in the Bill is in the Bill. I do not notice the word “sparingly" in the Bill. What is there will be there, so it gives me great concern that the Bill will remain the same. I have huge concerns that the buffer zone may be enforced on farmers where it is not necessary; perhaps where the Department or the Forest Service could do it themselves and provide that buffer zone on their own land. I cannot see times when that would not happen.

1671. Mr O’Boyle: Starting from scratch, if we went out today or tomorrow to start to plant a forest, there is great opportunity for us to step far back from the boundary and have a buffer zone. However, we already have forests that have grown and have perhaps been established closer to the boundary, so those limit the opportunity of what we can do until we get to the clear felling stage. We may not be able to do much different within our boundary until we have harvested the trees. It is not normal practice, and it can be quite detrimental to a forest, to seek to remove the edge trees in order to have a buffer. The whole forest could become unstable and blow down prematurely because it has been opened up to the wind.

1672. We will be able to increase the protection within our boundary, but that opportunity is not currently available to us in all circumstances. That is the purpose of what is being proposed in the Bill.

1673. Mr Small: We recognise that the Committee is concerned that we could take a power like that and, in theory, use it whenever and wherever we choose. We are talking about looking again at the clause. We are considering a test so that we would only use the power in circumstances only in which the vegetation was of a type that constituted a real fire risk. We acknowledge that that will not always be the case, but gorse bushes along the whole perimeter of a forest are certainly a real risk. Willie has referred to the Mournes area, where there is a genuine fire risk. This is an attempt to try and manage those kinds of situations.

1674. We are aware of the concerns about getting the wording right. We will look again at the wording of the clause to see whether, as far as possible, we can include some kind of assurance in respect of how we use the clause.

1675. Mr Elliott: It should only used be after Forest Service explores all of its avenues and options and is totally satisfied that it could not do anything. It may be acceptable in those circumstances. That is the only way in which the Bill will get through. Otherwise, I do not accept the notion of using the power sparingly. You guys, and the people who will come after you —

1676. Mr Small: In fairness, Tom, we have had the power since 1953. We have used it very rarely.

1677. Mr Elliott: Is it only a transfer of the 1953 Act?

1678. Mr Small: It is the 1953 Act carried forward. You may ask why it is needed if it has not been used often in the past, but we face very real fire risks. It gives us the ability to use the provision in extreme circumstance. However, as I said, we will look again at the wording.

1679. Dr W McCrea: It is a fact that what is in the Bill will stand at the end of the day, so we have to get it right. We have to be sure. There is no doubt that there could be implications for countryside management schemes, etc. The countryside is coming down with bureaucrats who point out some of the anomalies and cause a lot of trouble to individuals.

1680. In the briefing paper, you say:

“However, we note the concerns and are considering further the specific circumstances".

1681. What are those circumstances? Surely, you need to define the circumstances, so that there is no ambiguity and nothing left to conjecture. I am happy that you are considering the specific circumstances, but after that, we will have to see the colour of you money as to those circumstances.

1682. As has been pointed out to you by some of the interested organisations, the importance of dead wood and the management of ancient and long-established woodlands should be recognised. Therefore, we must be very careful, lest the provision is used in a wider range of cases, because the circumstances are not defined in the legislation.

1683. Remember, we are not making legislation for you four gentlemen. We are not making legislation on the basis of the promises that you make today. Others will occupy your seats when you leave. Therefore, remember that we must get the legislation right.

1684. Mr Molloy: I am thinking along the same lines. Although you may be reasonable in how you use the provision, others may not be. Most of the woodland that was wrongly planted up to the boundaries over the past number years should be coming near the end of its term. Surely, therefore, it is easier for you to clear your side of the fence than it is for you to clean your neighbour’s side of the fence. A lot of the gorse originates from forestry and grows on to adjacent land, so farmers could probably claim that the Department is already impinging on their land. Therefore, you need to look first at what you can do within your own boundaries before you propose legislation that would hand ownership of adjacent land to the Forest Service.

1685. Mr W Clarke: A large number of fires in the south Down area have been caused by whins and gorse bushes, which is a concern. It is not unreasonable for the Department to want to protect its forests, because they are an asset in which the Department has invested a lot of money and has allowed to mature. Hundreds of thousands of pounds can be lost due to forest fires, so it is not unreasonable for the Department to try to protect them.

1686. Large areas of forest in south Down are in water catchment areas, and NI Water no longer holds Crown immunity: therefore, it would also be governed by the provision.

1687. The Chairperson: A lot of the fires are due to criminal acts.

1688. Mr Molloy: People who live close to Lough Neagh are stopped from developing land because of the hedges and trees that have grown along the lough. The land has become designated as an area of special scientific interest. Those people cannot remove the hedges and trees. Legislation and bureaucracy can get in the way. Therefore, although forestry is an investment, it should be planned so that the Department will not need to inpinge on neighbouring land.

1689. Mr W Clarke: If the Department is planting woodland, it will want to maximise the footprint that that makes. Although small areas may not sound like much, a lot of timber production could be lost if trees are not planted on them. For example, an area of 15 sq m accounts for a lot of timber.

1690. Dr W McCrea: You cannot impinge on everybody else.

1691. Mr Elliott: Absolutely.

1692. Mr W Clarke: Sure, he loves me. One will still be left with the problem of the gorse and the potential of sparks, so the land should be managed regardless of whether the Forest Service puts in a buffer zone, as it probably should.

1693. Mr Small: We have no intention of going on to adjacent land on which cereals or other agricultural produce are being grown. The provision will only apply in circumstances where vegetation that constitutes a fire risk is being grown on adjacent land. Generally, the problems are whin bushes and gorse bushes, and it is that type of vegetation that we want to address.

1694. Mr Molloy: Do you accept that most of the vegetation grows out from the forest on to the adjacent land?

1695. Mr O’Boyle: I should provide some context briefly. We talked about the legislation being in place for a long time. Under the old legislation, afforestation covered large areas of upland forestry beside heather sites, and so on. At that time, common practice among the farming community was to burn heather. Therefore, the legislation did not cause a burden to the farmer: in fact, it helped farmers when officials went on to land to burn heather, in a controlled way, that was in close proximity to a forest. It freed up the opportunity for them to burn heather without taking the risk of having to manage it at the forest boundary. That is the context from which all of that came.

1696. Mr Irwin: The fact is that it has been on the statute book since 1953, which is almost 60 years. That is longer than most of us have been around —

1697. The Chairperson: Who are you kidding?

1698. Mr Irwin: I said most of us.

1699. I would have thought that it would rarely be an issue. We are probably getting too uptight about this. It is not an issue when it involves ordinary farmland; only when it involves areas where there are heather or whin bushes. Where possible, a farmer should use his own ground as a buffer. However, that is not always possible, if trees are already planted, and I understand that.

1700. Mr W Clarke: Francie is just angry that he did not slap it the first time round in 1953.

1701. Mr Molloy: I was not in Stormont the first time round.

1702. Dr W McCrea: Will you clarify the circumstances, so that we know exactly what you mean?

1703. The Chairperson: Yes. They will send back that to us.

1704. Mr Small: We will seek to do that.

1705. The Chairperson: We are content to move on to part 3 of the Bill, which covers the felling of trees. Clauses 14 to 29 deal with felling licences. We know that you are aware that we have received a number of representations about fees for felling licences. Last week, when the Committee met ConFor at Castlewellan Forest Park, I was taken by their argument about the perverse impact that fees would have on their ability to do what they want, which is to have a commercially successful business. Given that much of the discussion must bear in mind the commercial necessity to use wood, it would be remiss of the Department not to consider ConFor’s representations. It wants the fees aspect to be taken out completely.

1706. As I said, fees would have a perverse impact on that business, which is worth tens of millions of pounds to Northern Ireland’s economy. If fees were brought in, that would encourage many people to step out of such business because it would no longer be potentially profitable. That would send out all the wrong signals. It would also create unfair competition regulations on these islands. As I understand it, fees are not charged in GB or in the Republic of Ireland. The Department should bear that in mind and consider ConFor’s representation; of which, I am sure that you are aware.

1707. Licensing is a separate issue, in that there seems to be recognition that it sets a regulatory standard that most businesses understand that they must meet in order to comply with buying, selling and commercial production of wood and timber. Therefore, licensing does not appear to be controversial; rather, it is the associated fees that have caused problems. You may have some comments to make about compensation and encouragement of planting.

1708. Mr Small: We accept your comments about fees. The Committee made strong representations at our previous meeting. Since then, we have looked at the entire issue of fees and the need for parity with England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. You will be aware of government cost-recovery principles which, in normal circumstances, require an attempt to recover the costs of operating an administrative system. Fees fall into that category. Nevertheless, we are aware of the parity issue and the Committee’s comments. We are looking carefully at the whole issue of fees and whether there is an argument for fees to be waived, given the circumstances elsewhere.

1709. You referred to the due diligence issues around marketing timber, which provide another argument in favour of felling regulations as a means of demonstrating that timber brought to market has been properly and sustainably grown and legally felled. That supports the idea of a felling licence system, which we understand is operated virtually everywhere else. Felling regulation through licensing is operated in GB, the Republic of Ireland, Europe and beyond, so we are not proposing something unique. It is something that will bring us into line with other areas. Therefore, we are looking carefully at the whole issue of fees, and, within the next week or so, I hope to be able to report to the Committee on the outcome of those considerations.

1710. Another issue that the Committee and a number of stakeholders raised, which I addressed in my paper to the Committee last week, was the application of the felling regulation system to government. We have thought hard about that and have taken legal advice on the issue. The conclusion is that the principle of the Crown is indivisible in constitutional terms. Therefore, in effect, Forest Service by regulating felling, with it being taken forward by another Department, would equate to an individual regulating himself. We have taken legal advice, which suggests that it is not normal for one Department to regulate another, or to enforce or take penalties against another Department. The government is regarded as being capable of —

1711. The Chairperson: Will there need to be checks and balances in there?

1712. Mr Small: Yes. The government is regarded as being bound by proper government policy and requirements. Therefore, the requirements of the UK forestry standard, for example, apply to government, and government must meet those obligations.

1713. On foot of advice that we have taken, and following further consideration on the issue, we do not think that it is appropriate to apply the felling regulation system to Government Departments, or ourselves, because we are the forestry authority in Northern Ireland. Michael, what was the term used?

1714. Mr McCann: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards?

1715. Mr Small: I know that sounds a bit odd.

1716. The Chairperson: With that bit of Latin, you are going to kill us. Will you address the issue of compensation? The RSPB and the Woodland Trust made representations to us about compensation. The right to compensation in respect of tree preservation orders was removed, which begs the question: why should the legislation be any different?

1717. Mr Small: The right to compensation was removed for tree preservation orders in certain circumstances. It was narrowed down, but there may still be some form of compensation.

1718. The Chairperson: That is not our understanding of it. Will you come back to us on that specific point?

1719. Mr Small: Yes. At one point, the development opportunity was taken out of the compensation calculation. I do not know if it has moved again since then, but our legal advice is very strong on the matter. If we are to seek to interfere with how an individual uses his private property, we then trigger the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, which, in effect, means that some balancing needs to take place and any actions that we take need to be proportionate. In effect, the balancing is taken forward through the offering of compensation, so if we interfere with an individual’s right to use their property, we must balance that through the provision of compensation.

1720. The Chairperson: Say you had ancient woodland on your property, and each year you threatened to cut it down in order to get your hands on compensation. That would be perverse, would it not?

1721. Mr Small: We have looked at that in a number of circumstances. That is one example. Another is where felling takes place and we want appropriate re-stocking to take place.

1722. In the case of ancient woodland that was native and broadleaf, we would require that the same kind of woodland to be regenerated. In those circumstances, our advice is that no significant human rights issues have been triggered. However, if the original woodland was conifer, and we required something different to be regenerated — for example, native woodland — then we would be at risk of triggering a compensation provision. I know that the Woodland Trust is concerned that this would limit our intentions and ability to control the form of regeneration. The advice we have taken is that if we interfere in that way, we trigger human rights obligations and we need to consider compensation provisions. We cannot do without them.

1723. The point the Chairman raised is about a threat to remove ancient woodland to demand compensation. Is that one that we have dealt with directly, Stewart?

1724. Mr Morwood: Good forestry practice and the UK forestry standard make it clear that it may be acceptable to fell trees in ancient woodland. The woodland owner will seek to derive benefit from ownership. The forestry standard prescribes ways in which he should consider the felling of that woodland. If his proposal was to fell small groups of trees or thin the trees within the woodland, that might be acceptable as good forestry practice. However, if he indicated that he wanted to fell all the trees over the whole of that woodland at once; that would not be consistent with good forestry practice. The owner can still derive benefit from the woodland. I think that the clause in the Bill recognises that an owner may be restricted from deriving benefit from the timber value, in particular, for such a period of time that the timber starts to deteriorate. Therefore, he would sustain a specific loss to the value of his crop. However, in implementing good forestry practice, there is no intention to ensure that the owner acted so that a significant amount of his woodland was deteriorating. That is one of the key areas where compensation is intended to be given, in addition to the area that David mentioned.

1725. Mr Elliott: In fairness, there is no overall objection to felling licenses; in fact, they are broadly welcomed. The difficulties are the fees connected with felling licenses and the management plan structure.

1726. We need to protect ancient woodland. However, commercial forest production is a different issue. The process of applying for a felling license should be a very simple mechanism with no fees involved. That would ensure that the Forest Service’s own commercial arm would not have an unfair advantage over the industry. That is a concern in the private forestry industry: that it would be unfairly disadvantaged over fees and the drafting of a management plan to satisfy the Forest Service which is in the same business. Strike the balance: protect ancient woodland and allow commercial operators to develop their businesses without too much difficulty. That is the trick, and it should not be overly difficult. Common sense should prevail and there should be a reasonable outcome for everyone.

1727. Mr Small: We have talked separately about the nature of a felling plan, and we have assured you that our desire is to keep the plan as simple as possible so that it is not a burden. That remains our intention.

1728. Mr Elliott: However, I return to the issue that what is in the Bill is in the Bill.

1729. Mr Small: Yes, but the nature of a felling application or plan will be prescribed in subordinate legislation, and I am not sure whether it would be appropriate to prescribe it in detail in primary legislation. However, we will have to have that debate when we bring forward subordinate legislation. Our intention is to keep felling licencing as simple as possible.

1730. When it comes to the commercial advantage of that, or otherwise, we maintain very robust and detailed forest management plans. However, the proposed felling plan would be tiny in comparison. We keep such robust and comprehensive plans because of the nature, scale and size of the forest estate, our desire to meet UK forestry standards, and our independent certification under the UK woodland assurance scheme. However, that is not what we are proposing for felling licences, or for the planning and application process. Our intent is to keep that as simple and straightforward as possible.

1731. I can give you an example of the type of plan that we have in mind, which is no more than a couple of pages of text describing the forest, the area of woodland, the species type, proposed felling dates and the regeneration proposals. Depending on the size of the woodland, a plan, with a map to support it, could be done on one page. We are not proposing much more than that and we can provide an example.

1732. Mr Elliott: If the Chairman agrees, a draft of that would be useful. Could we talk to the industry about that?

1733. Mr Small: Yes. However, felling plans will need to be properly prescribed in subordinate legislation, and that will be a further opportunity for the Committee to ensure that they are appropriate.

1734. Mr Shannon: Amendment 22 concerns one Government Department applying for a licence from another Government Department. You have stated that you do not believe that that is necessary.

1735. I want to go back to a point that I made earlier, and again it relates to the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill. There are conditions that people have to meet. If Forestry Service does not apply for a licence, is it still subject to the conditions of that licence. There have been cases, not necessarily within the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, in which enforcement action was only stopped because it was a Government Department that did wrong. When it comes to felling licences, I want to make sure that everyone, irrespective of who they are, is subject to the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill. If those outside government are subject to the law then those within must be subject to the law also.

1736. Mr Elliott: Somebody mentioned that there is financial support available for felling licences and management plans to the private forestry industry in other parts of the UK. Perhaps you can clarify that.

1737. Mr Small: It is not for felling licences or plans.

1738. Mr Elliott: Is there support for management plans?

1739. Mr Morwood: In some parts of the UK, there is support for management plans, but those plans encompass a much greater area of work than the felling proposals. It was designed to provide a small level of support to owners who are producing plans for their entire woodland and which covers all social, environmental and economic objectives.

1740. Mr Small: If we were to impose a duty on every woodland owner to fully meet the requirements of UK forestry standards, owners may be required, throughout the whole rotation of their woodland, to maintain more detailed forest management plans, similar to that which we maintain, but perhaps not as comprehensive. In those circumstances, some support has been given, but there will be no financial support for the simple felling plan that we are proposing.

1741. Mr Elliott: But you are undertaking to look at fees overall?

1742. Mr Small: Yes.

1743. The Chairperson: Gentlemen, that has taken us through the legislation.

1744. Mr Shannon: Paragraph 29 of the paper states that the Department is considering a proposal for the Bill to contain the duty to set up a stakeholder advisory body. What does that mean? Is it lip service?

1745. Mr Small: No, it is not lip service. We discussed the issue earlier, and the point that we were making is that we are considering it on the basis that we would like to give some further thought to what functions such a body might have, its role, its membership, and how often it would need to meet. We are trying to establish what additional role or contribution such a group could make that we cannot currently seek through the normal channels and procedures that we have in place.

1746. If we were taking forward a piece of strategic work, we would normally approach stakeholders or form a stakeholder forum, through which we could take expert views or the views of interested groups to help inform the work that we are doing. We have done that twice in the past year in respect of a recreation strategy and the work we are doing around forest expansion and how to create better incentives and promotion to persuade woodland owners to convert to woodland. Therefore, we have normal channels and approaches through which we can secure that kind of expert advice or input. We are considering what additional contribution such a body, which would have to meet once or twice a year, would actually make that we cannot currently secure through another format. If we are going to establish another kind of advisory body or quango, we need to ensure that it is needed and that it has a specific role to play.

1747. Mr Shannon: I am not in favour of the creation of quangos for the sake of it, but there is one example of such a body in my neck of the woods — the Strangford Lough advisory and management committee. It brings people together, and that body and all the other bodies that use it help to formulate government opinion. Therefore, it is very beneficial and effective. Such bodies make people feel that they are part of the process, and that is crucial.

1748. The Chairperson: We would like you to give serious consideration to an advisory body which draws on expertise. We talked earlier about the inventory, and you are going to draw on that expertise anyway from other groups; therefore, it is something that you should consider and come back to us on.

1749. We will forward comments to the Bill team just to amplify some of the points that have been raised today. We also suggest that the Bill team liaise with the Committee Clerk on Wednesday to discuss next Monday’s meeting, where we will take the Bill forward to the next stage. We normally only meet on Tuesdays, but we will meet on Monday next week as well.

1750. Mr Small: I appreciate that we are still in the middle of the Committee Stage, but, at some point, we would like to achieve some understanding of areas where we may be reaching agreement, so that we can then go to the Office of the Legislative Counsel.

1751. The Chairperson: I have tried to be clear throughout that there are a lot of areas where we are in agreement. It is about difference of emphasis and clarity, and, if we get that clarity, you will get a straightforward view from the Committee on whether we support certain aspects or are against certain aspects of the Bill. However, by and large, we are very supportive of the concepts that have been annunciated, and, as long as they are emphasised in the right areas, we want to take that forward. However, it has been a helpful discussion today, and I appreciate your team putting the time and thought into that. Thank you very much.

1 February 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Pat Doherty
Mr Patsy McGlone
Mr George Savage
Mr Jim Shannon

Witnesses:

Mr Michael McCann
Mr Stuart Morwood
Mr David Small

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

1752. The Chairperson (Mr Paisley Jnr): You are all very welcome. The previous evidence session was very good, and I appreciate the time that was taken to get through that. You have had a follow-up meeting with the Committee Clerk and officials to go through some of the other issues and to put some meat on the bones. Perhaps you can bring us up to date and we will take it from there.

1753. Mr David Small (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): I apologise for the absence of John Joe O’Boyle. He was to be with us today; however, his father-in-law has suddenly become ill.

1754. The Chairperson: Do pass on our thoughts to John Joe.

1755. Mr Small: At last week’s meeting, the Committee raised a number of points around clause 1, which sets out the general duty for the Department. Reference was made to the importance that the Committee attaches to the Bill’s clearly referencing issues such as biodiversity, recreation opportunities within forests, sustainable forestry and climate change. We have now submitted, for the Committee’s consideration, a revised clause 1, which we think sets out clearly the duty to promote issues such as those. The revised clause puts a clear, direct duty on the Department to encourage the enjoyment and recreational use of forests. Those provisions are all new in comparison to the original clause 1. The Bill now clearly and overtly refers to the importance of climate change, biodiversity and recreation within our forests, as well as to the wider duty on Forest Service to promote sustainable forestry across all forests and woodland in Northern Ireland.

1756. From our point of view, we feel that the duty on the Department has been broadened and made clearer, and I hope that we are now reaching the point at which that is coming close to satisfying the Committee. Clause 1 is clearly important because it sets the foundation for the Bill. It would be a good step forward if we felt that we were getting close to the point at which we could agree on it.

1757. The Chairperson: Clause 1 is really the Bill’s mission statement. Members have a sheet which indicates what the general duty on the Department is. It would be very useful to have a discussion, today or next week, with stakeholders’ representatives, to ensure that that clause now meets the enthusiasm of the community so that the Forestry Bill can go forward and achieve what we want it to achieve. I do not know whether the wording in clause 1 is too narrow or whether there needs to be more in it; that is something that members may want to come back on. I propose that, next week, we have a round-table meeting for stakeholders to thrash that out and to get to the point at which we can sign on the dotted line on the general principle of the Bill.

1758. Mr Elliott: From our perspective, the rewording of clause 1 changes its meaning significantly. Having only looked at it quickly, I do not have too much to pick up on. However, the encouragement to plant more forest should be included in that clause, and, at this stage, I am not sure that it is.

1759. Mr Small: It is under the revised clause 1(1), which includes:

“the general duty of promoting afforestation".

1760. Afforestation is the planting of new forests and forest expansion. Promoting that is a duty that falls to the Department, and we will do it through grants, incentives and other initiatives. We all know how difficult that is proving at the moment, and there is significant work to be done in that area. However, the duty to promote forest expansion is clearly set out in clause 1(1). It is one of the key duties.

1761. Mr Savage: Does that come under the land parcel improvement scheme?

1762. Mr Stuart Morwood (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): It will come under the incentives provided by the woodland grant scheme and the farm woodland premium scheme. There is also an incentive in that when farmers in receipt of single farm payment plant their land with forest, they will be eligible to receive single farm payment.

1763. Mr Savage: What is the smallest area of ground that those schemes will take into account if a farmer wants to plant it with forest?

1764. Mr Morwood: Under the woodland grant scheme, the minimum area is 0·2 hectares, or half an acre. Under the farm woodland premium scheme, the minimum area is one hectare.

1765. Mr Savage: That is important. Over the weekend, I spoke with a couple of farmers who had picked up something in the paper about this, and who are anxious to plant trees on their property.

1766. Mr Small: There is an opportunity under the countryside management scheme.

1767. Mr Morwood: Yes. Under the countryside management scheme, farmers can receive support for planting less than 0·2 hectares or half an acre. The schemes should join up in that respect.

1768. The Chairperson: As revised, clause 1 states that you want to promote forestry:

“in such a way as to encourage the enjoyment and recreational use of that land by the public".

1769. It also mentions sustainability. Is there any obligation on the Department to produce a strategy on sustainability, employment, encouragement of the use of forests, or the recreational use of forests? Can we add more meat to the duty by way of a strategy? Will that be taken care of in subordinate legislation?

1770. Mr Small: The Department has strategies in place. We published a strategy last year that specifically deals with the recreational use of forests and how we intend to promote more recreational use and facilities. We also have a strategy for sustainability and growth, which sets out a whole range of issues on sustainability and sets out the two key objectives of forest expansion and the sustainable management of forests. Strategies are in place to underpin the general duty of the Bill, but they will need to be refreshed and renewed at some point.

1771. The Chairperson: I was particularly thinking of a proposal similar to the one contained in the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill whereby the Department of the Environment (DOE) designates a biodiversity strategy. They actually pick in on that, and they pool resources as well, to a large degree.

1772. Mr Small: We have looked at the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill and that clause. It is slightly different in that the opening duty of that Bill places a duty on all public bodies, including Departments, to promote and meet the obligations around biodiversity.

1773. The Chairperson: Whereas the Forestry Bill places the duty solely on the Department?

1774. Mr Small: Yes. The duty in the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill is also supported with a biodiversity strategy.

1775. The Chairperson: That would not do what we are seeking here, would it?

1776. Mr Small: The slight difference is that the Department is imposing duties on itself and the Forest Service through the Bill. The designation of the strategy under the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill is because of the duty that it imposes on other public bodies. We are not trying to impose duties on any other public bodies through the Forestry Bill.

1777. The Chairperson: Do you accept that there is some requirement on other Departments to recognise the benefits? Take obese children: a good recreation-focused Forestry Bill that encouraged kids to use forests for recreational and sporting purposes would have a beneficial impact on what the Department of Health would have to spend on addressing obesity in children and adults. Can the Department not put more enthusiasm into the duty to show the other Departments the benefits that they could derive from it? Everyone recognises that you will do the lion’s share of it, but should a general duty not also be placed on other Departments?

1778. Mr Small: I refer you to the strategy that the Department published last year, which refers to the health and wellbeing benefits of forests and the tourism potential. It sets out —

1779. The Chairperson: Yes, but that strategy does not have legislative teeth.

1780. Mr Small: I accept that point and I was going to come on to it. The strategy includes an implementation plan whereby the Department is obliged to proactively go to other Departments and discuss the opportunities and shared objectives with them. The question is whether that is sufficient or whether something that is linked to subordinate legislation would be more effective. At this stage, my view is that a clear strategy is in place which obliges the Department to go to other Departments and discuss other opportunities with them.

1781. The Chairperson: So you are basically referring me to the answer that you gave some moments ago.

1782. Mr Small: Yes. The Committee Clerk has referred us to the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill and the possibility of some sort of designation approach. However, I would prefer not to commit to that at this stage. I would like to take it back and discuss it with other colleagues in the Department and with the Minister.

1783. The Chairperson: OK. Your taking it back, thrashing it out, testing it and coming back to the Committee is the important part. However, the Committee would like to come to a firm starting point with you in relation to the general principle. That matter could be sorted out quite quickly, and we could have a quick round-table discussion with some of the stakeholders next week.

1784. Mr McGlone: You mentioned the strategies that the Department has in place with respect to forest expansion and the sustainable management of the forests. Do you feel that the Forestry Bill, in combination with the strategies, will give us more improvement on the expansion of forests and improve performance in that area? There are some concerns that the Forest Service needs to improve its performance a little.

1785. Mr Small: The Bill will give the Department the powers that it needs to promote and encourage forest expansion through the grant facility and the ability to offer incentives to landowners. The strategy sets out the importance of doing that, and sets some targets, but alongside that we need to continue to develop our ideas and thoughts about how we can promote this to landowners, including farmers, and make it appear more attractive to them.

1786. If the Bill is passed it will give the Department the powers it needs, most notably the ability to pay grants. The strategy sets out direction, aspirations and targets, but we need to think about the mechanisms for delivery. The grant facility is already in place; we have recently increased the grants and are getting some response to that from landowners, but we need to continue to think about other strategies and other ways in which we can make it more attractive.

1787. Mr McGlone: You mentioned the response from the landowners; I take it that that response has not been over the top.

1788. Mr Small: It has been fairly positive. Having said that, it is only a couple of months since the grant rates were increased, but there has been a positive response. We need to continue to get the message to landowners, including farmers, that those higher rates of grant are available, and that there are other benefits that woodland can deliver for them. There is a large piece of work involved in the promotion and communication with farmers and landowners. That is where we need to put in more work.

1789. Mr McGlone: Can you explain how this cluster of strategies could do that? You say that it will involve a large body of work, but, were this Bill not here, what could not be done that you think can be done when the Bill and the strategies are in place?

1790. Mr Small: The Forestry Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 gave the Department the ability to pay grants, and that is how we have been doing it since then. What is missing is the ability to persuade farmers — a lot of our focus is on agricultural land — that converting their land to forestry is the right thing to do. That is a major decision for a farmer, because it involves locking his land up in woodland for a period. That is where additional work is needed.

1791. The Bill will continue to give the Department similar powers, but I am not sure that we need more legislative authority or power to do what we need to do. We just need to do more of it. We need to put more resources against the task of promoting, encouraging and communicating more effectively with the farming community and other landowners. We do not need any additional powers to do that; we just need to do more of it. That is where the focus needs to be.

1792. Mr McGlone: You have almost made a case against the Bill. The Department needs to be doing things other than the legislative stuff. What will the Bill empower the Department to do? Usually, bringing in a Bill is not the best way to encourage or incentivise people to do anything. Can you give me some indication of how the Bill gives added focus to what you have just outlined to me — persuasion and encouraging more active participation, especially by the farming community?

1793. Mr Small: The main element is the ability to pay grants, and the Bill will ensure that the Department continues to have that authority.

1794. Mr McGlone: Yes, but I am trying to establish what new powers it gives. It continues to give the Department an authority that it already had. What is new in the Bill? Perhaps I am a little convoluted in trying to get to the point, but I am trying to tease out the elements of it.

1795. Mr Small: I understand the point that you are making. You are trying to identify any new particular provisions in the Bill that will support forest expansion beyond the provisions of the current legislation. I am not sure there are any, because I do not think that the Department needs more legislative power. It needs to do more of the stuff that it is already able to do. It is not that we have not been doing that effectively, but we must find the right mechanisms for convincing landowners that woodland creation is the right thing to do.

1796. We had to be careful that we did not impose too onerous a duty on the landowner, because that would have acted as a disincentive. We have found a way of avoiding that by placing the duty on the Department to promote sustainable forestry rather than placing that duty on the individual landowner, because that would have been a further disincentive. We have avoided that, and maintained the Department’s ability to pay grants. With all that in place, we need to do more around communication and promotion, and we do not need more legislative power to do that.

1797. Mr Morwood: It comes back to the general duty of the Department. In the 1953 Act, the emphasis was purely on timber production. However, with the new Bill, the means by which an owner can benefit from his woodland are not restricted, and our promotion of timber production is not restricted. The Bill includes recreational, social and environmental use, and some of the proposed amendments to the general duty make reference to recreation and to climate change. Those may be directly relevant to private landowners because they may see an opportunity to enhance the value of the woodland for their business in relation to recreation or some aspect of carbon sequestration and climate change. Therefore, it comes back to the general duty of the Bill and ensuring that woodland owners in the private and public estate redefine what is meant by “forestry". That will give the means by which an individual owner can identify the further benefits and act effectively upon them. We should encourage them to do that.

1798. Mr McGlone: I am playing devil’s advocate here, but how does the legislation incentivise someone to participate in contributing to combating climate change and encouraging the general enjoyment of facilities?

1799. Mr Morwood: I am merely speculating here, but, if I were a farmer marketing my milk or beef produce, a retailer might want to ascertain the carbon footprint of my business. That retailer might say that he wants my carbon footprint to be within certain limits, and he might want me to demonstrate that. There is good scientific evidence that increasing the woodland cover of a farm will increase carbon sequestration, and that may be an opportunity for me to market my produce in a means that is much more attractive than the milk or beef that is derived from some other part of the world.

1800. Mr Small: As Mr Morwood said, we are speculating on that. However, we are trying to identify new areas that constitute a potential new benefit for a farmer or woodland owner. When those issues become clear, and when we are clear that there will be a new benefit from it, we need to be quick to get out and promote that benefit. There are potential new areas where farmers can derive a benefit from wood energy, renewable energy opportunities or the ability to secure the higher rates of grant, and, as Mr Morwood said, there is a potential benefit in the future around the carbon balance on farms. However, at this stage, it is too early to know where that whole argument might go.

1801. The Chairperson: We need to have round-table discussions on the issue. That will give us an opportunity to drill down and clear up any concerns. It will involve the Department, people who are involved in the business use of forests, such as ConFor, and people who are involved in the recreational use or potential recreational use of forests. We will include them all and have round-table discussions on the issue. At that point, hopefully, we will have a real definition and a strategy statement, and we can go forward with that.

1802. Clause 5 deals with the compulsory acquisition of land. What have you done on that since the previous meeting?

1803. Mr Elliott: Before you go into that, I notice that clause 4 is not mentioned in your explanatory notes.

1804. Mr Small: That is referred to under clause 7. There are similarities between clause 4 and clause 7.

1805. The Chairperson: We will come back to it.

1806. Mr Small: We have not presented any new proposals or amendments to clause 5 today.

1807. The Chairperson: Are you holding those back from us?

1808. Mr Small: No, we are looking at what those amendments might be, taking account of the Committee’s comments last week. There was a widespread concern in the Committee about the wide-ranging nature of the powers that are currently proposed in clause 5. The Committee said that those powers need to be narrowed down significantly, with some illustration of the Department having exhausted all other possible avenues.

1809. We are considering how we can describe that in a revised clause before we go to the Office of the Legislative Counsel to get an amended clause. The Committee also suggested the idea of temporary, rather than permanent, arrangements. We are considering those issues, and we will seek advice on how we can capture all of that in an amended clause. We hope to have something for the Committee for next week.

1810. The Chairperson: I reiterate that the Committee is opposed to clause 5 in its current form, and it is essential that we reach agreement on that. I will not rehearse the arguments on why that should be the case, but there is merit in coming to an agreed position, and that will help the Bill.

1811. We move on to the proposals to do with woodland inventory.

1812. Mr Small: At last week’s meeting, the Committee was concerned that the inventory was to be restricted to the area of forest cover in Northern Ireland. We accept that that is too narrow, and we propose to amend the clause so that the inventory will include cover, location, size and type of woodland. We feel that an inventory that covered those aspects would meet our needs. We are aware that some stakeholders have talked about taking the inventory further to deal with issues such as timber quality and quantity, flora and fauna. We feel that that would be an onerous and resource-intensive obligation.

1813. The Chairperson: Yes, I picked up on that last week. Is there a way of incentivising the gathering of that information by saying that a person who plants on land must take responsibility for developing the inventory? If they were able to provide information on those other subjects that you say are expensive, the Department could assist with the payment. Is it possible to look at incentivising the gathering of information?

1814. Mr Small: Mr Morwood, do you have any thoughts on the woodlands grant scheme, through which we pay grants and may have some leverage to do that? It might be more difficult to impose those kinds of obligations on a private woodland owner, who, without a grant from the Department, chooses to plant another piece of woodland.

1815. The Chairperson: It would not have to be done in the form of a compulsory obligation. The Department could create an incentive for people to help it to have a baseline for its knowledge by adding a layer to the grant system. If people gathered information in a certain way and to a certain standard, the Department could pay for it.

1816. Mr Morwood: Yes, that can be considered. The cost of such an incentive scheme would be significant. We would also have to ensure that a standard is maintained. That is key for any inventory. The landowners would come to inventory from a range of levels of expertise, from very little experience to considerable.

1817. The Chairperson: That would be like me submitting accounts that have been completed to my standard; they have to be to a certain standard. That would force me to employ a professional to deliver my accounts properly. Likewise, the private sector could be encouraged to apply for assistance in gathering information, selecting someone from a list. It is a way of expanding one’s knowledge base on what is out there.

1818. Mr Morwood: Inventory will expand the knowledge base; one would look for the most cost-effective way of achieving that. If one opts for a level of detail which involves enumeration of all forest areas on the ground, whether by people who are appropriately trained or by an in-house team, the costs will be high. That is the experience from elsewhere.

1819. The Chairperson: I think that it would create competition in the marketplace.

1820. Mr Morwood: There will be competition, and that will drive efficiencies. However, the maintenance of standards is key, and one has to have a process in place to ensure that all the work is being done to an acceptable standard. There will, therefore, be an additional regulatory burden on those who are gathering the data.

1821. As is the case with all inventories, one has to bear in mind that it is not a once-and-for-all operation; it is an operation that will need to be updated regularly. One can start with a wide-ranging and detailed inventory, but, within a number of years, it will be dated, and people will ask what changes are occurring and whether you can provide them with measurements of the changes. One is, therefore, rerunning the process, because it is not a once-and-for-all operation.

1822. The Chairperson: It starts from the principle that if it is not measured, it is not done.

1823. Mr Morwood: Measurement is needed; there is no doubt about that.

1824. The Chairperson: Without a baseline, you cannot even start that measurement.

1825. Mr Morwood: One does need the baseline, and one needs to ensure that those key parameters are identified. There is a risk that one generates a much longer list of the parameters that one wants to measure, which is associated with cost, but one will want to do that as efficiently and effectively as possible.

1826. The Chairperson: I am not trying to impose an onerous burden on the Department. I appreciate that the Department has little enough money, but I think that there is an opportunity that the Department could look at. I agree that you have to provide a skeleton of measurements, but there is an opportunity to add more meat to the bones through another process. That could be incentivised. It is just an idea, but I think that you could look at it. There is no point in having something that is so expensive that it becomes a burden, but I think that there is a way round it.

1827. Mr Elliott: I am concerned that we are getting into too much detail on this area. If it were left to some environmentalists in this country, we would be growing nothing in Northern Ireland except fauna and flora; there would be no timber, grass or cereal production. I do not think that the Department should be subject to gathering huge amounts of evidence at a huge cost for that. I support a broad inventory of woodlands and forestry, but I am not keen to do other people’s work.

1828. The Chairperson: Even with a grant?

1829. Mr Elliott: Even with a grant available on this occasion. I see some of those groups putting farmers to a great deal of trouble. You are aware for some of them as well. In some areas, they make it almost impossible for the farmers to farm. I am not prepared to allow that to affect forestry production as well.

1830. The Chairperson: There is more than one opinion on this, as you can see.

1831. Mr Small: I support Tom’s position. We support the need for an inventory, and we have indicated that we will broaden that out. We know that other data sources are out there, and we will look at those over the course of the next year and try to gather together that additional data. Although the statutory duty will require us to deal with issues such as cover, location, size and type of woodland, other data sets exist that will enable us to expand that and go beyond what is indicated in the legislation.

1832. As to incentivising the private woodland owner, I can see the potential outcome. It depends how far we intend to go. Once we begin to talk about timber quality, timber quantity, flora and fauna, the exercise is not straightforward. There is a lot of survey work involved in doing that. Even for the private woodland owner, and even with a grant, it is an onerous burden.

1833. From a forestry point of view, we question the value or need for some of that additional data. There may be biodiversity benefits from greater information on flora and fauna, but I am not sure that it would be appropriate for us to be offering additional incentive, or grant aid, to gather that information. Our view is that, if we have a statutory inventory that covers location, size and type of woodland, that will provide the baseline that we need to measure any progress we make on forest expansion, type of expansion and so on. The addition to that of other data sets that we know exist will take it further again. That is as far as we think it appropriate to go at this stage.

1834. Mr Savage: I agree with Tom. This presents great opportunities to develop the forest industry in Northern Ireland, provided that people are not burdened with bureaucracy and paperwork. That has to be assured.

1835. I have two questions. There are a lot of opportunities for large-scale forestry. However, the question in everyone’s mind is how much per hectare the farmer gets. You have probably given it to me in writing somewhere. What does the farmer receive?

1836. My second question is important. There are many questions about forests at present. Will there be more opportunities for people out on horseback and one thing or another? Can you open up your forests more for people who have horses? Many MLAs receive letters from people who have horses but nowhere to ride them. The roads are dangerous; can they use forest walks? That is a huge opportunity for you. You can sell the forest to those people, and you will have the backing of quite a number of people. That opportunity is there for the grasping.

1837. Mr Small: I will let Mr Morwood deal with the rates of grant available. As to use of the forest for pony-trekking and horse riding, we have already opened up much of the forests for those purposes. We have recently held discussions with the British Horse Society about a more strategic approach to catering for and accommodating pony riding in the forests. We hope that that process of engagement with the British Horse Society will lead to some agreed approach as to how all that can be managed in a more strategic and better way.

1838. Mr Morwood: The woodland grant scheme rates for broadleaf planting were increased in November 2009 from £1,850 to £2,400 a hectare and for conifers from £1,250 to £1,600 a hectare. Those grants are available to assist in establishing new woodland. The annual premiums were increased by up to 50%. The rate for improved lowland areas, for example, increased from £270 to £290 a hectare per annum. If one planted predominantly broadleaf trees, the owner would be eligible for that for a 15-year period. The new rates compare reasonably well with conacre rates. The rate for non-farmers for improved land is £400 a hectare.

1839. The Chairperson: The Department, in its proposals for clause 6, says that it will:

“publish that register in such form and at such intervals as the Department thinks appropriate."

1840. The Committee would not quite agree to that blank cheque. Can you be a wee bit more specific about what you have in mind? Are you looking at publishing annually or biannually, for example?

1841. Mr Morwood: The register would certainly not be published on an annual or biannual basis. We may need to distinguish between the inventory and our annual targets to encourage people to create woodland under the woodland grant scheme. Each year, we report accurately down to the tenth of a hectare how many hectares were established under the woodland grant scheme. We are obliged to continue to do that.

1842. The inventory is to provide a pen picture of change over, say, five to 10 years. The Northern Ireland Countryside Survey, for example, is carried out every seven to 10 years. The inventory is essentially an attempt to gauge significant changes in woodland cover. We will have accurate data about woodland created under the grant scheme. What we do not have is any indication of people whose woodland is not created through a grant scheme, or woodland that has been removed since the most recent inventory. The publishing period would, therefore, be longer than you suggested.

1843. The Chairperson: That is a helpful explanation. Could you detail it in the proposal? I do not know whether the Department is proposing to publish the register every five, seven, 10 years or whatever. The reasons given are understandable, but it is important that the details are laid out so that we know what we are buying into, as opposed to saying that the register will be published

“at such intervals as the Department thinks appropriate."

1844. Mr Small: We will spell that out. Our concern is that if we indicate a definite period, a cost implication will be associated with that every one, two or three years, or whatever the case may be.

1845. The Chairperson: Stuart is inclined to beyond every five years, by the sound of it, and that is a fair assessment. Every seven years, perhaps. I have no truck with whatever period is decided, but you must be specific.

1846. Mr Small: Yes, you mean something more definite. We will examine that issue and what that time period may be.

1847. The Chairperson: Clause 7 deals with incidental powers, and the Department has proposed amendments to restrict those powers. Can you tell us what you have done on that since our previous meeting? Please bear in mind the use for development of forestry land.

1848. Mr Small: Mr Elliott had issues with this clause. It is a pity that he is no longer present.

1849. The main change that we recommend is that we take out the offending words in the clause’s opening sentence, which currently state that we may do anything that we believe to be consistent. We propose to remove that wording and limit the powers to the specific circumstances that are outlined under clause 7(2), which is about entering into arrangements through a lease or some such methodology, or, as clause 7(2)(b) states, forming a body corporate, whereby we could go into a joint venture with an organisation. That provision is included in the legislation because the experience of colleagues in the Forest Service has been that a joint venture or body corporate-type approach is sometimes the best way in which to secure the maximum return for the public estate. However, the clause will now be more specific in the details of those four paragraphs of subsection (2), and the offending wording at the start is to be removed.

1850. The other point that we have clarified is that the ability to enter those arrangements or form bodies corporate was originally envisaged for the functions of the Bill that delivered the general duty, as previously prescribed in clause 1. Clause 4, to which Mr Elliott referred, dealt with a situation in which forestry land could be used for purposes other than forestry. However, that was also tied into the general duty. We have tried to merge clauses 4 and 7 as far as possible, in respect of entering partnerships or arrangements with other groups, in order to make that provision more consistent.

1851. Clause 4, which we propose to amend to contain only two subsections, deals with the additional power that the Department needs to develop projects; for example, tourism or renewable energy projects. However, some test must be involved to relate that to the general duty. We must ensure that the scale of what we propose is consistent with the general duty. Therefore, if we propose a tourism project that takes up half a hectare of a 3,000 hectare forest, that would be regarded as reasonable and in proportion to our wider duty. However, if it were otherwise, it would no longer be feasible.

1852. The Chairperson: It provides the balance.

1853. Mr Small: Yes. Clause 4(2) gives the balance and some protection against the general duty. As I said, the offending words in clause 7(1) will be removed so that the powers are more prescribed. I hope that that addresses the key issues that the Committee raised. Tom Elliott raised the specific issue of the use of forestry land for those wider purposes. At the previous meeting, he sought clarity that that was the intention, and I can confirm for him that it was. Our paper, which the Committee received this morning, reaffirms that.

1854. The Chairperson: I thank you for listening to us. Since our previous meeting, good work has been done to redress the balance and get clause 7 right. I appreciate that. No doubt, Committee members will want to raise other issues.

1855. Let us move to the proposed amendments to clause 8, which concern the issue of killing “at any time". I stress that that refers to animals.

1856. Mr Small: Clause 8 deals with killing deer or hares in the close season.

1857. The Chairperson: I noticed that the partridge season ended in Northern Ireland at the weekend.

1858. Mr Small: At the previous meeting, we outlined a number of changes that we proposed to implement to reflect the Committee’s earlier comments. They include narrowing the range of animals included under the clause, to the point at which it will now include only deer and hare. Clause 8 is almost the same as the provision in the 1953 Act. We are now looking at a clause to which there will be only a slight amendment.

1859. I think that we have addressed the key issues that the Committee raised. Jim Shannon raised a point about killing “at any time", which would also allow night-time killing, and so on. We have reflected on those comments and decided to remove that provision from the Bill.

1860. The Chairperson: Have you removed that provision?

1861. Mr Small: That is our proposal. We have discussed clause 8 with Department of the Environment colleagues, who have compared it with the work that they are doing on the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill. They are satisfied that the clause is consistent with the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 as it stands, and with their proposals to amend the 1985 Order under Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill. They are satisfied with the nature of clause 8.

1862. We hope that we have addressed most of the issues that the Committee raised.

1863. The Chairperson: I ask that you bring the draft text to the Committee so that we can take a close look at it and try to sign off on it.

1864. Mr Savage: Clause 8(3) as it stands refers to killing wild animals “at any time". If that provision were to be better worded, it may not attract so much attention. The point about wild animals trespassing on land is that a landowner must have a good fence around his land, and the adjoining landowner should also have adequate fencing to keep his cattle or other animals from straying on to neighbouring property. There are aspects of the clause that raise questions. We are living in a wonderful age, but we must be very careful. I do not like the wording of clause 8, because I think that it draws too much attention to the killing of animals.

1865. The wording suggests that animals can be killed “at any time". One activity that is becoming popular in the countryside is the lamping of wild animals. We must be very careful. Some of those people can leave a trail of destruction behind them. I am aware that wild animals must be controlled, and I know the damage that they can do to young trees, but the wording just does not look right.

1866. The Chairperson: I appreciate those comments, but, to be fair, the Department said that it will bring new wording to the Committee.

1867. Mr Small: We will be rewording the clause to address that issue. Some other issues around night-time killing and lamping are addressed in the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill.

1868. The Chairperson: Clause 9 deals with control of animals on land adjacent to a forest.

1869. Mr Small: The key issue in clause 9 was to do with the proposal on the previous clause.

1870. The Chairperson: Was that the proposal about damage?

1871. Mr Small: It was the proposal to recover costs from a landowner. Last Tuesday, we indicated that that is no longer our intention. We will return to the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) to have the clause redrafted to reflect that change.

1872. The Chairperson: Will the clause be removed entirely and replaced with a new clause 9?

1873. Mr Small: No; we still want to retain clause 9 and the included provision to go on to adjoining land, but we intend to remove the ability to recover costs from the landowner, having taken into account stakeholder comments and those of the Committee.

1874. Again, we have spoken with DOE colleagues about clause 9, and about general issues around the control of animals. They were content with the structure of clause 9. At our previous meeting, we agreed that we would meet with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) to discuss its reservations about the clause.

1875. The Chairperson: That is a sensible idea. Again, I am glad that you have listened to our deliberations from the previous meeting. It is unfair to go on to someone’s land, destroy an animal and then send the person a bill for doing so. At least that provision is to be removed. The Committee would like to see the detailed wording, and then we will hopefully be able to sign off on clause 9.

1876. Clause 10 deals with the removal or destruction of vegetation on adjoining uncultivated land.

1877. Mr Small: At last week’s meeting, we discussed the concerns of stakeholders and one or two Committee members over how we will use the powers granted under clause 10. Although the clause is essentially a straightforward carry-over from the 1953 Act, concerns were raised last week about the definition of “uncultivated land". We also indicated that, if possible, we would like to prescribe the circumstances and specific vegetation that clause 10 should cover. We are considering both those issues and will try to bring back something more prescriptive to the Committee.

1878. The Chairperson: We are still unclear about the breadth, meaning, scope and definition of “uncultivated land", although you have said that you will come to us on that.

1879. Mr Small: Yes; we hope to bring something back next week.

1880. The Chairperson: That is positive. Once again, I appreciate the fact that you are listening to the Committee on these points.

1881. We now move to felling licences.

1882. Mr Small: One of the key issues was the proposal to charge a fee for a felling application and licence. We have noted the Committee’s concerns about fees and are considering whether we could waive the fee in the context of wider Government principles on cost recovery. The Department has sought advice on fees, and we still await comment on that. If it is possible, I think that our intention will be to waive the fee and maintain parity with GB and the South. I cannot confirm that at this stage, although I hope to be able to do so next week.

1883. The Chairperson: I want to reiterate the position that the Committee took in evidence from the Confederation of Forest Industries (ConFor) that it would be perverse for a fee to be imposed on people who are trying to make a living from forestry in very difficult circumstances. In ConFor’s words, it would have the perverse effect of undermining the Bill’s central purpose.

Committee suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming —

1884. The Chairperson: You will be pleased to know that our adjournment was successful for some. There was a Division of the House, and half the House was successful.

1885. We were discussing the issue of fees. I was reiterating points made previously that to include felling licences ultimately defeats the purpose of the Bill and its general strategy. I implore you, therefore, to listen to the Committee representations and not have additional costs or fees. Enough was said about that, and I know that you are listening. We have seen some good progress. However, I reiterate that point, because representations to the Committee from the likes of ConFor and other groups made clear that fees are the difference between making a business and not making a business.

1886. Mr Small: We hope to be in a position next week to clarify the position on fees.

1887. The Chairperson: Excellent.

1888. Mr Elliott: Has Forest Service any idea about what type of fees are being considered?

1889. Mr Small: In terms of the quantum?

1890. Mr Elliott: Sorry?

1891. Mr Small: The quantum of a fee?

1892. Mr Elliott: Yes.

1893. Mr Small: Not really, Tom. A felling licence will cover a five-year period. Therefore, we will not get an application from that individual for another five years. Based on that, and our knowledge of the number of woodland owners, we estimate that we are looking at 60 or so applications a year.

1894. Against that, we will need to process the application, and we may need to visit the site. We will also have to look after the administrative side, and we estimate that we will need one or two individuals engaged full-time or part-time on that. In those circumstances, if we were to apply full cost recovery for one or two salaries against 60 applications, the application fee would be very high. Those are some of the issues that we have been trying to capture and articulate. Therefore, on that basis, we do not think that full cost recovery would be justifiable.

1895. The Chairperson: Members will have a copy of the draft management plan, and from what I can see, you are not looking for a great deal of information.

1896. Mr Small: The management plan is part 4 of the felling licence application form. It sets out a description of the work plan for the woodland area for the five-year period that would be covered by the licence, along with any regeneration plans. The second page sets it out in tabular format.

1897. The Chairperson: To return to our earlier discussion, bearing in mind the comments that other Committee members have made, is there room should they ask to add to your inventory, or does the form suffice?

1898. Mr Small: It would give us some information that we need about area, species and volume, but we would be asking too much from woodland owners if it were extended to flora and fauna. If woodland owners are already concerned about keeping the felling plan as low a burden as possible, I would not want to add more requirements to it. However, the form is two or three pages and, in almost every circumstance, that is the extent to which we will be looking for information.

1899. Mr Elliott: It is relatively simple at the moment, and I suppose it is similar to the fees issue. It is like saying that we will charge only a £10 application fee, but then it can increase quite quickly. Therefore, the management plan for the felling licence looks simple, but I would not like to see any more detail in it, because other sectors, such as the pig and poultry sector, must obtain an integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) licence, which is quite intensive. It involves getting specialists to test soil and areas, and I would not like to see the management plan become anything like that.

1900. Mr Small: That would not be our intention. This is our proposal at this stage, but the nature of the plan will be prescribed in subordinate legislation, so the Committee will have another opportunity to discuss it.

1901. The Chairperson: It is important to keep it simple.

1902. We will now discuss ancient woodlands, and, in particular, compensation and implications for setting conditions to restock ancient woodland sites. What have you decided since our previous discussion?

1903. Mr Small: At our previous discussion, I outlined some of the issues that we felt we had to deal with around balance in respect of human rights compatibility. Our concern was that we might receive an application for felling in a forest or ancient woodland site, and, in many circumstances, the felling may be quite appropriate. For instance, it may be aimed at taking out conifer and replacing it with a more appropriate broadleaf. Our view is that felling will sometimes be appropriate. It is quite likely that, rather than refuse a felling application, we may grant an application with some conditions attached. In doing that, one of the main conditions will be that restocking should take full account of good forestry practice and that ancient woodland be dealt with in detail, in accordance with ‘The UK Forestry Standard’. The document includes a section on managing broadleaf woodland and ancient woodland, and we would ask woodland owners to take full account of that guidance.

1904. The Department also outlined some of the issues in making a specific requirement to force an individual to plant a particular species of tree, which, in some circumstances, would almost certainly trigger compensation provisions. Those provisions would be difficult to manage and the compensation could involve significant amounts.

1905. The Department’s view is that compensation provisions must be included in some form in the Bill. We discussed that issue with the Woodland Trust and were advised that those provisions should be removed, because they will tie the Department’s hand to some extent. However, the legal advice that was received by the Department indicated that some compensation provision must be contained in the Bill to provide balance and to demonstrate compatibility with human rights legislation.

1906. Once those provisions are enacted, the Department must be very careful in managing its handling of applications for felling licences, and any conditions that it might impose on the licensee. In some circumstances, that might restrict how far it can go without triggering compensation requirements, but that is the situation that the Department must deal with.

1907. The Department is pretty confident that in areas where broadleaf woodlands are on an ancient woodland site that it will be able to require restocking with a similar form of woodland. However, the difficulties arise in areas where conifer woodlands have been planted on an ancient woodland site. The question is whether the Department could require the woodland owner to plant native broadleaf woodland in future. The Department feels that such action would trigger compensation requirements and mean that people who own conifer woodlands would be queuing up and threatening to cut them down and replace them with conifers to force the Department to go in the other direction. In those circumstances, rather than proposing a condition on the licensee that requires broadleaf woodland to be replanted, the Department would propose one requiring proper account to be taken of forestry standards and good forestry practice. That might not be as far as we would prefer to go, but, in those circumstances, it is about as far as we could go.

1908. The Chairperson: OK. Thank you.

1909. We will now move on to the issue of the advisory body. I am loath to propose the introduction of another quango, and, quite frankly, I do not think that the resources are in place to finance another one. However, the recreational, environmental, farming and business sides all have expertise in the area of forestry, and, in order to ensure that the Department and the economy benefit, we should be listening to those voices. I am unsure how the Department wants to take forward the advisory body, but there should be no duplication, and we should draw in those who are already involved in forestry and listen to their views. It is about trying to achieve a balance, and it might be useful if the Committee were to raise the issue of the proposed advisory body during its meeting with the stakeholders next week to get their views on it.

1910. Mr Small: As the Committee will know, the Department questioned whether there is a sufficient added benefit in establishing a permanent advisory body, and whether it would deliver something that we cannot already gain from our stakeholder approaches.

1911. When the recreational strategy was being developed, the Department established a stakeholder forum for one year, while it developed ideas. That stakeholder input was helpful, shaping various aspects of that document, and, as a result of that success, the Department has proposed establishing a stakeholder forum to manage the implementation of the Bill. The Department will continue to employ such a process when it is developing something new or significant, because that approach seems to deliver results.

1912. The Chairperson: Answers on a postcard?

1913. Mr Small: We must be convinced that there is some added benefit in creating an advisory body.

1914. Mr Elliott: Is there any merit in making the body’s remit slightly wider so that it looks after felling licences? That would result in Forest Service’s having to apply for a felling licence, because applications would not be made to it. I am throwing that out as an option.

1915. Mr Small: Forest Service is the forest authority in Northern Ireland, and it is appropriate that it makes such judgements. If that kind of role were to be delegated to an advisory body, the body would have to be heavily resourced, because it would take on all the judgements and balance those against all the UK forestry standards and guidance. It would be a major job for such a body. If the Department were to have to apply for felling licences, there would not be 60 applications a year, because we manage 60,000 hectares of woodland, in which much felling takes place. I am not sure that that idea is workable. The burden on an advisory body with that kind of role would be too great.

1916. Mr Elliott: It would put private forests on a much more equal footing with the Department.

1917. Mr Small: I appreciate that.

1918. Mr Elliott: It would mean that the Department did not keep its current unfair advantage.

1919. Mr Small: I do not accept that we have an unfair advantage. I accept that we will not go through the process of applying for a felling licence, but we maintain a comprehensive management-planning process that far exceeds what we are proposing in the two- or three-page felling plan that we have just discussed. We do an awful lot more than apply for a licence, and having to do so would not be a burden for us. I do not accept that the fact that some groups will have to apply for a licence while we do not means that there is an unfair playing field. The current arrangements and processes are already robust and comprehensive.

1920. Mr Elliott: ConFor told the Committee that the timber that it uses for its manufacturing has to be from that licensed or quality-assured process.

1921. The Chairperson: It has to meet a standard.

1922. Mr Small: Its timber has to meet the UK woodland assurance standard (UKWAS).

1923. Mr Elliott: I assume that the Department has to meet the same standard.

1924. The Chairperson: It must need to meet it, because one cannot trade without having done so.

1925. Mr Small: That is correct; one would struggle to put timber on the market without it. A range of obligations needs to be satisfied to meet it. The difficulty with the standard is that it involves a certification that must be renewed annually and is subject to audit. We do not know what would happen if we were to grant licences on the basis of the standard’s being met. Individual woodland owners could lose their certification after the licence had been issued, and we would be none the wiser.

1926. Mr Elliott: Can the process of certification and the issuing of a licence be amalgamated and streamlined? Processes can become overly bureaucratic if they involve a couple of stages.

1927. Mr Small: In a way, it will almost become like that. Any woodland owner who is registered under UKWAS will have a good set of forest plans, which will probably exceed what we require. Woodland owners will fill in the two- or three-page felling plan once every five years, and that will be routine for them. No burden will be placed on them, and, if we can waive the fee, there will be no fee burden either. Our proposal should not impose any new burden on someone who is UKWAS-certified.

1928. Mr W Clarke: The non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that the Committee talked to felt that there was not enough scrutiny of Forest Service. I am not saying that a new quango should be set up, but your meetings with stakeholders could take place twice a year to discuss issues such as the Department’s performance and the improvements that could be made. A compulsion on the Department to hold two meetings a year with stakeholders is the way forward and a sensible approach to take.

1929. Mr Small: We take the view that we are pretty well scrutinised. We are scrutinised by this Committee —

1930. The Chairperson: I am glad that you feel that way.

1931. Mr Small: We are also scrutinised by the UK woodland assurance standard scheme, and our annual audits are scrutinised by the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) and by our internal audit. When we set up stakeholder forums to carry out specific pieces of work, that is also a scrutiny process through which we are challenged. I have listened to your points and Tom’s points, and we have set out our position that we are not convinced, but I will reflect further on what you have said and get back to you next week.

1932. The Chairperson: David, we have found today’s meeting to be helpful. As I have reiterated, we have come to agreement on a number of areas, and I appreciate the fact that you are listening to us. We can keep that level of communication. I ask you to speak to the Committee Clerk’s office before the next evidence session if you have any issues on which to follow up.

1933. I remind Members that we will meet tomorrow between 12.30 pm and 5.00 pm, and between 5.45 pm and 7.30 pm. We put in more hours than those who are meeting in Hillsborough.

8 February 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr William Irwin
Mr Patsy McGlone
Mr Francie Molloy
Mr George Savage
Mr Jim Shannon

Witnesses:

Mr Roger Pollen

British Association for Shooting and Conservation

Mr Rupert Pigott

Confederation of Forest Industries

Dr Caro-Lynne Ferris
Mr Dawson Stelfox

Countryside Access and Activities Network

Mr Michael McCann
Mr Stuart Morwood
Mr David Small

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

Professor Sue Christie

Northern Ireland Environment Link

Mr John Martin

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Mr Patrick Cregg

Woodland Trust

1934. The Chairperson (Mr Paisley Jnr): I thank everyone for attending this round table evidence session on the Forestry Bill. I am sorry that the Senate Chamber is not big enough, nor the table round enough, to accommodate everyone. I am glad that people want to be at this table, unlike some tables, and I hope that the meeting leads to a productive outcome.

1935. You are all very welcome. In particular, I welcome representatives from the private and the charitable sectors, who are here to contribute to the legislation that we want to see progress through the Assembly. I remind people to switch off their mobile phones, as they can interfere with the recording. Witnesses should indicate to the Committee Clerk or me that they wish to speak and then come forward to the microphone. I remind everyone to speak up so that they can be heard properly. That is not usually something I have to be told to do.

1936. I welcome the representatives from the Department, who are David Small and his team, which comprises Michael McCann and Stuart Morwood. Stakeholders who are represented are Rupert Pigott, who is the head of policy at the Confederation of Forest Industries (ConFor); John Martin, who is the policy officer for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB); Patrick Cregg, who is the director of the Woodland Trust; Roger Pollen, who is the Northern Ireland director of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC); Caro-Lynne Ferris, who is the network director of the Countryside Access and Activities Network (CAAN), and Dawson Stelfox, who is chairman of the CAAN board; and Sue Christie, who is the director of Northern Ireland Environment Link.

1937. As everyone will know, there has been some discussion around clause 1, which deals with the general duty of promoting forestry. We are trying to ensure that the Bill does what it says on the tin, so to speak. We want to ensure that we get the legislation that we want out of this exercise. We want legislation that achieves the Department’s objectives and, more importantly, those of the Assembly, in order to make the most of our Forest Service, for those who make a living out of it, those who want to make a living out of it and those who want to enjoy it in its fullness.

1938. David, have you anything to tell us on the general duty?

1939. Mr David Small (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): We have now presented an amended clause 1, which, we hope, clearly addresses the comments that the Committee and stakeholders made about the need for the clause to deal with issues such as biodiversity, climate change and forest recreation, as well as the wider sustainable forestry commitment. We discussed the clause at the Committee’s two previous meetings, and the proposed amended clause now captures the sentiment of the issues that were raised.

1940. The Chairperson: Are you satisfied that there is no obligation on the Department or Forest Service to achieve the objectives or targets defined in the strategies and that to designate them would provide a strong additional assurance to the Committee and the wider Northern Ireland community?

1941. Mr Small: I am satisfied that, when it publishes a strategy, the Department is committed to delivering any targets included in it. For example, the recreation strategy, which was published last year, contains two pages of specific action points, with associated targets.

1942. The Chairperson: Is there not a way in which to incorporate those strategies into the Bill? Unless they are recorded in some way, one could say that they will be like most reports: intended to gather dust on shelves. If that is the case, they will not achieve their intended dynamic.

1943. Mr Small: That is certainly not the intention of any strategy that we publish.

1944. The Chairperson: I know, but intentions and long paths.

1945. Mr Small: Our view is that well-established procedures are in place. We consult with the Committee, while it plays a scrutiny role in developing strategies and policy, and an advisory role when it comes to how the Minister and her Department administer policy. In the normal course of events, we will bring strategies to the Committee.

1946. We view the idea of designating strategies as simply another piece of almost unnecessary bureaucracy, because the established procedures are already very robust. I am not aware of a situation in which the Department has failed to bring a strategy to the Committee in that way. Indeed, our intention will be that any strategies that we develop will be agreed with the Committee and will be subject to this kind of discussion.

1947. The Chairperson: To play devil’s advocate, if you fail to attain a goal in one of the strategies, where is the comeback on the Department if that strategy is not included in legislation? I know that you would never dream of it, but an official could say in future that a strategy is not enshrined in legislation and was merely a strategy document.

1948. Mr Small: I appreciate that. The strategy commits us to making an annual report to the Minister, so we will be directly answerable to the Minister in each year of the strategy. We will also report progress in our annual reports, so stakeholders and the Committee will have the opportunity, if it is the case, to question why we have not performed as well as we had hoped or to question why targets have not been achieved. Where that happens, we will then put in place plans to ensure that, in the following year, we do all that we can to achieve each individual target. I appreciate that if the strategy were designated in subordinate legislation, some weight would be added to that requirement, but I am quite satisfied that the existing arrangements —

1949. The Chairperson: Are you going to go into the trenches on this one? To cut to the chase, if the Committee recommends designation, will the Department oppose it?

1950. Mr Small: The Department questions the need to do it. If it is possible, I could meet separately with the Committee Clerk. I would like to establish the Committee’s precise objective through this kind of measure and discuss with the Committee Clerk how that might be achieved, either in the idea of designating strategies in legislation or in other means.

1951. The Chairperson: If Committee members are content with the proposal that David and his team meet with the Committee Clerk, we will see whether that goal might be achieved. I would have been minded to make the proposal that you designate the strategy, but I am happy for us to have a discussion first. Do any colleagues wish to comment on that?

1952. Mr Dawson Stelfox (Countryside Access and Activities Network): As you might expect, my comment relates to the duty to provide for recreation. There is a slight improvement in the revised wording that Forest Service has proposed, but I do not think that it goes far enough to holding Forest Service responsible for providing —

1953. The Chairperson: What wording would you like to see in clause 1?

1954. Mr Stelfox: At present, the wording in the proposed amended clause 1(2)(a) reads: “in relation to forestry land in such a way as to encourage the enjoyment and recreational use of that land".

1955. That is promoting forestry land, but we would like to see the word “encourage" replaced with “actively promote and develop" or “actively develop".

1956. Forest Service should have a duty to be involved in the promotion and development of recreation. To my mind, the word “encourage" does not go far enough in placing a duty on Forest Service to do that.

1957. The Chairperson: The point that you have made is familiar, Dawson, and it is something that we have said before. If we want to achieve the goal of getting the most out of Forest Service, the general duty must be absolutely exacting in what it is trying to achieve.

1958. Does Dawson’s proposal do violence to the Department’s position?

1959. Mr Small: Dawson proposes two aspects. The first is to “actively promote", and we have no difficulty with that, as you are making the point that encouragement is about promoting.

1960. When it comes to “develop", it is a question of what that means. If that requires the Department to do the tourism development — that is, to develop the projects, to develop the tourism potential and to fund the projects — we would have concerns about that. We have been working with a range of stakeholders, both commercial and public authority —

1961. The Chairperson: Instead of silo thinking, can the clause be worded in such a way that it brings in the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB), the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) or whoever else, so that the legislation does not place on you responsibilities or expenses that are not necessarily the Department’s yet does make it a duty that you develop and deliver the enjoyment and recreational use of forestry land?

1962. Mr Small: Yes. It is probably all down to the wording. Once the wording is in primary legislation, it is there, and we need to be —

1963. The Chairperson: Clause 4(1) uses the words: “The Department may use or develop forestry land for a purpose other than forestry."

1964. If you were to use a similar form of words in clause 1, you could list how that would be achieved in consultation with other Departments, and so on.

1965. Mr Stelfox: Forest Service has a duty actively to promote and develop the use of forestry land. That does not necessarily mean that Forest Service pay for that to happen, nor does it necessarily mean that Forest Service bring in the stakeholders. Rather, it means that Forest Service has a responsibility to ensure that it happens. That is the crucial point, whatever the wording of the clause.

1966. The Chairperson: We are all on the one page on that, Dawson. The issue is that David wants to make sure that the legislation does not allow some clever lawyer to tie the Department up and have it pay for something for which it is not responsible.

1967. Mr Small: In fairness, the proposed amended clause 1(2) starts off by stating: “The Department must carry out that duty–

(a) in relation to forestry land in such a way as to encourage the enjoyment and recreational use of that land by the public".

1968. If the duty is about actively promoting the recreational use or development of land, there may be some form of words that can be used. However, there was a suggestion that the Department should take on a statutory duty to provide tourism.

1969. The Chairperson: All that the Committee is asking the Department to do is to insert in the proposed amended clause 1(2)(a) the words “to develop".

1970. Mr Small: Sorry, I missed that point.

1971. The Chairperson: In the proposed amended clause 1(2)(a), under “General duty of the Department", the Committee is asking for an amendment that allows the Department to encourage the enjoyment of forestry land and to develop recreational use of forestry land by the public. It is really asking for the insertion of two words, but, if inserted, those words would give the clause more thrust, thus adding to what the Bill is trying to achieve for forests, and for people who wish to make greater use of our forests. I don’t think that we are a million miles away, David. Perhaps you are being very cautious.

1972. Mr Small: May I look at that clause again in the light of the points raised to determine whether there is some amendment with which the Department would be comfortable?

1973. The Chairperson: You could find a form of words that would allow “to develop" to be inserted. People would then be able to say that the Department has the duty to be the dynamo to drive the legislation forward.

1974. Mr Small: That is the Department’s intention with clause 1. Our existing proposed amended wording at clause 1(2) is very strong. It states that the Department

“must carry out that duty … to encourage the enjoyment and recreational use of that land by the public".

1975. Mr Stelfox: The clause needs to go further than just “to encourage".

1976. The Chairperson: Yes; it does.

1977. Mr Stelfox: It needs to deliver.

1978. Mr Small: We will look at the wording.

1979. Mr John Martin (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds): The Woodland Trust and the RSPB support the Department’s proposed amendment as it stands. The general duty needs to be right from the start, because that dictates the rest of the legislation. Therefore, it is important that we get it right from the start, and I thank the Committee and the Chairperson for inviting us to discuss the Bill.

1980. If we were to ask for an amendment to clause 1, we would look for the words “and enhancement" to be inserted after “to contribute to the protection" in the proposed amended clause 1(3)(b), when that refers to the environment and sustainability.

1981. Moreover, on clause 4, if Forest Service is to have a general duty to encourage partnerships, which it wants to do and which we encourage, and to develop bodies corporate to enable that, those bodies corporate should have to adhere to the requirements of the general duty. Therefore, if Forest Service is going to enter into those partnerships —

1982. The Chairperson: We will come to those matters when we get to clause 4.

1983. Mr Martin: I was just making the point that if Forest Service is going to encourage partnerships as part of clause 1, it need to be held to that in clause 1.

1984. The Chairperson: Absolutely; it needs to be in the legislation.

1985. Would you be happy with a further proposed change to clause 1 after what you heard from your colleague from CAAN about ensuring that the general duty is tied down and that the enjoyment and recreational use of forestry land be actively developed?

1986. Mr Martin: I think that the RSPB would be in support of that.

1987. Mr Stelfox: May I make one further point? In the proposed clause 1(3), paragraphs (a) and (b) describe what “forestry" includes. If possible, I wish to suggest a further use of “forestry", for a third paragraph: “the development of forests so as to contribute to the wider economy through recreation and tourism".

1988. Mr Small: Yes. All that I can offer to do is take away some of the proposals that have been made.

1989. The Chairperson: Does it do violence with what we have discussed here?

1990. Mr Small: It does not. I think that it is down to wording, but it is consistent with Dawson Stelfox’s first proposal and expands it further.

1991. The Chairperson: It is important to have the definition right, so that, first, it makes sense to forest practitioners who are reading the legislation, and, secondly, it has a name and a strategy to get the most out of it. That is what we are trying to do with the legislation.

1992. Mr Small: Yes.

1993. The Chairperson: Are members content to move on from clause 1?

1994. Mr Elliott: We need to strike a balance and ensure that tourism developments and leisure facilities are provided where there is a potential and opportunity for them, but we do not want to tie up the Department so much that it must provide them at every request. Do you understand what I mean by balance? It is important that the Department provides them, in some areas by itself or in partnership with others, but we do not want to have the Department tied to having to provide the facilities for every lobby group that comes in looking for a wee forest park somewhere where it will be of no benefit to anyone.

1995. The Chairperson: I imagine that there will be a need for a business case to make it a reality. I think that you will agree that we need legislation that has the teeth to achieve that. The question of balance will depend on how that is interpreted vis-à-vis the situation on the ground.

1996. Mr Roger Pollen (British Association for Shooting and Conservation): Our issues are with clauses 4 and 5, but I want to refer forward to them. In setting out the objectives, it comes down to what Tom Elliott said about balance and judgement. The subjectivity of the legislation raised concerns; it is a matter of judgement. If we are not in any way able to hold the Department to account, it will be difficult for us to support the general objectives at this stage. I highlight the objective of climate change mitigation. Under that guise, compulsory purchase powers and other issues that are set out later, it would be possible to disrupt enormously the activities of our members in the sporting shooting community — which is worth £45 million to the Northern Ireland economy — without a clear feeling that there is a mechanism for raising those concerns on a small individual basis with the Department as it goes on with its business.

1997. The Chairperson: We need to have absolute certainty as to what the legislation is about and what can be achieved under it. You are in tune with Tom Elliott with regard to making sure that the balance can be achieved through the legislation. I am worried that we have a piece of legislation that does not change things dramatically. If so, what is the point of legislating? If we are going to legislate, let us ensure that we open up opportunities and, at the same time, protect where protection has to be afforded.

1998. Mr Small: The mitigation of climate change is in there because it was seen as being important by stakeholders and the Committee. Our main vehicle for delivering the mitigation of climate change will be the creation of more forests. I do not see that as being a threat.

1999. Mr Pollen: You are creating legislation within which officials will be working further down the line, as you said at the beginning. We have a piece of legislation that is almost 60 years old. Therefore we need to get this right. As an example, one of our members stated that if the Forest Service owned half a hill and he owned the other half, Forest Service might feel that they could vest the entire hill and set up a wind farm on it as a means of complying with the requirements.

2000. Mr Small: Our vesting powers are subject to the scrutiny of the Committee.

2001. The Chairperson: We will come to those powers shortly. Are you content with where we are with regard to the general duty?

2002. Mr Pollen: Yes, subject to how other measures and proposals in relation to other clauses are addressed.

2003. Mr Savage: I welcome a lot of things in clause 3, but pony-trekking, which we mentioned at last week’s Committee meeting, is not mentioned. A lot of people now take part in that, and few facilities are available for them. I would like the words “equine industry" or “pony-trekking" included so that people are clear that that facility is available if they want to use it.

2004. Mr Small: Significant provision is made already for pony-trekking and horse riding. We are in discussions with the British Horse Society about an approach to the issue that would address provision across the Province. The powers in clause 3 give us the power to create bridle paths or pony-trekking trails. We have the provisions and powers that we need, and, through our strategic work, we are committed to try to develop those facilities better.

2005. The Chairperson: Clause 3 states that the Department may provide:

“viewing points, bridlepaths, nature trails … such other recreational, conservational or educational facilities as the Department considers appropriate."

2006. That provides quite a bit of scope.

2007. Mr Small: I think that that is pretty broad.

2008. The Chairperson: It is.

2009. We will move on to clause 4, unless anyone wishes to discuss clause 2. Clause 4 deals with the use or development of forestry land. I see that you have done some major redrafting since the original Bill.

2010. Mr Small: We propose to remove subsections (2) and (3) of clause 4 and amalgamate them with clause 7, because they deal with the same issue of establishing partnerships and bodies corporate. Earlier, a point was made about the need for balance in the use of the powers. Clause 4(4) requires us to have due regard to the general duty under clause 1(1), and that is how balance on the appropriate scale of development will be ensured.

2011. The Chairperson: Are members content with clause 4 as it stands? We will come to the proposed changes to clause 7 later.

2012. Mr Small: Clause 4 is about giving broader powers to the Department to develop projects such as tourism and renewable energy.

2013. The Chairperson: Clause 5 deals with the compulsory acquisition of land — a minor matter that has not caused any controversy.

2014. Mr Small: We have proposed an amended clause which significantly reduces the scope of the compulsory purchase powers. The Committee and some stakeholders raised a lot of concern about the wide, sweeping nature of some of the wording in the clause. We propose that the clause be reworded to restrict its use to providing or improving access to land.

2015. We also approached our legal advisers about the alternative idea of temporary acquisition. Their advice was that clause 2(1)(a), which sets out the arrangements for voluntary purchase of land, allows the temporary or permanent acquisition of land, rights of way or way leaves. Therefore, clause 2 allows sufficient discretion. Similarly, the restricted compulsory purchase powers that we now propose under clause 5 can be used either for a temporary purpose or a more permanent purpose, but only as a last resort. The issue of last resort has been important to the Committee.

2016. The Chairperson: Major changes have been proposed to clause 5. I remind Committee members that the Bill originally gave the Department the right to: “acquire compulsorily any land … for … the carrying out of any of its functions under this Act."

2017. This narrows it down considerably — actually, it changes the clause dramatically:

“The Department may acquire compulsorily any land which it requires for the purposes of or in connection with providing or improving access to any land so as to facilitate the carrying out of any of its functions".

2018. It is a much narrower area, which addresses some of the suspicions that many of us had about handing the Department such a blank cheque with regard to its activities.

2019. Mr Elliott: I am not convinced by Mr Small’s argument that temporary acquisition is not a good idea or one that can be taken forward. The Scottish Parliament has legislation for such an option in respect of railways. There are templates for the temporary acquisition of land; I suggest that the Department looks at what the Forestry Commission does in conjunction with the railways in Scotland and brings back a basis on which we can build our legislation. If necessary, the Committee could do some research on it as well, because I have some information. There are different options in the Scottish legislation for temporary and permanent acquisition of land.

2020. The Chairperson: That seems to be a sensible option. The legislation could say that, as a first step, the Department would explore temporary leasing before, subsequently, moving to acquisition. This will not be new to you, Mr Small. I know that the Ulster Farmers’ Union made similar representation.

2021. Mr Small: I agree, and that is, essentially, the proposal that we put to the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC). The legal advice is that it is unnecessary, because clause 5 captures the temporary and permanent options that would be available to us. It is unnecessary to separate them.

2022. We have proposed that we will be developing a set of guidelines which will dictate how we approach any decision to compulsorily acquire land and force us to go through a range of options, to include voluntary acquisition; acquisition on a temporary basis; compulsory purchase on a temporary basis; and, if all else fails, permanent compulsory purchase.

2023. The Chairperson: The Diseases of Animals Bill, for example, has a specific code of practice which details the steps that the Department must take along the route to finally seizing land. That is in the legislation. As Tom Elliott said, there is a template in other situations on the mainland, but there is a template in the Diseases of Animals Bill as well, which the Department could lift and apply.

2024. Mr Small: Do you mean in respect of establishing a code of practice?

2025. The Chairperson: Yes.

2026. Mr Small: We are offering a code of practice.

2027. The Chairperson: It is not here.

2028. Mr Small: We differ in that we are not proposing a statutory code of practice, and that decision is based on legal advice. It would be the only such code that we are aware of.

2029. The Chairperson: Have you received advice from the Departmental Solicitor’s Office (DSO) on this?

2030. Mr Small: We received advice from OLC.

2031. The Chairperson: That is not really legal advice; that is a drafter’s opinion. DSO provides legal advice.

2032. Mr Small: It is the opinion of the drafter of the Bill that —

2033. The Chairperson: With respect, you are his paymaster; you tell him what you want in the legislation. It is not the other way round. I think that there is something there which would afford you the opportunity to include that option in clause 5. It has been good practice elsewhere, and it would stand to the Department and show that the proposed legislation is not about taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I accept that clause 5 has changed dramatically from where it started life, and I welcome that. However, an additional caveat would allow for the steps to be seen to be taken and show that there is a course of action and that permanent acquisition is very much a last option.

2034. Mr Small: I can only agree to have a look at that again and report back to the Committee.

2035. Mr Molloy: There has been improvement from what we first saw. With previous legislation, we have had to see the guidelines beforehand, and I think that that would be useful in this case. The Department should start to accept that it cannot promise guidelines; we need to see what you are talking about.

2036. There is probably no other way of describing compulsory acquisition. However, there needs to be a statement that, like anyone else, the Department must pay a price to enter or acquire land. Anyone who wants to open an entrance, for example, has to buy the land. Compulsory acquisition needs to be based on market value. The use of the word “compulsory" seems to indicate that the Department will take land by whatever means necessary. We need to see the guidelines on how the Department will acquire land and whether it will pay the market price.

2037. Mr Small: The Bill will contain compensation provisions for circumstances in which we use the compulsory purchase powers. Those provisions will be guided by Land and Property Services valuers, who will determine an appropriate market value for that land. Landowners will receive an appropriate market value, so they will not lose out.

2038. Mr Michael McCann (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): Landowners can also appeal to the Lands Tribunal if they feel that they are not being offered a fair price.

2039. The Chairperson: Did you know that there has never been an appeal to the Lands Tribunal? I spoke to the commissioner last week and asked him whether he had ever had to exercise his powers. He said that he had not, because it is far too expensive for people to go down that route. That is something of a sideline, but I appreciate your point. The provision for appealing to the Lands Tribunal is contained in the original Bill.

2040. The public will see the compulsory acquisition power as draconian; Francie is absolutely right. The individual or community affected by that power must be clear that there are proper compensatory measures in place. It is in the interests of the Department that the compulsory acquisition power be seen as a last resort in dealing with a difficult problem.

2041. Mr Shannon: I apologise for not being here for the presentation. I, too, have deep concerns about the compulsory acquisition of land. I have fears about how the Department, rather than you as individuals, will interpret the powers for compulsory purchase. You mentioned that the guidelines would refer to temporary acquisition. However, with great respect, I do not want hear about guidelines that we do not know about at this moment in time. I would rather have it down in black and white in the Bill that the Department will not have the power for compulsory purchase at any stage.

2042. The Chairperson, the Deputy Chairperson, Francie and, I suspect, every other member of the Committee has consistently asked the Department to respect and listen to the points that we make and to draw up legislation that we can support. We want to work with the Department, but we also want the Department to work with the Committee.

2043. The Chairperson: I must say, with respect, that the Department has listened to our representations on the substance of the clause by reducing it and making it more focused. However, you are right that there is more to be done.

2044. Mr Shannon: That is exactly the point that I wanted to make.

2045. The Chairperson: I do not mind you having a go at the officials, but I have to defend them sometimes.

2046. Mr Shannon: It is all right for the Chairperson to have a go at you, but I am not allowed to. I would like the legislation to be worded in a way that gives protection. If I am going to sit on the Committee and endorse legislation, I want to be able to live with that legislation.

2047. The Chairperson: A code of practice would help in that regard.

2048. Mr Shannon: I would like to see what it is first.

2049. Mr Small: We have agreed to look at the idea of a code of practice and report back to the Committee.

2050. Mr W Clarke: I broadly welcome the amendments that you have proposed. They are a huge improvement, and they have taken on board a lot of what members have said about clarifying that the power will mainly be required for access purposes. The development of road infrastructure and access is very costly, so I see these as permanent structures. I do not see the logic in investing a lot of money to develop temporary infrastructure only to take it away again.

2051. However, there may be a situation where, for example, neighbours do not get on so well and one of them needs to cross the other’s land to access forestry. Maybe that was the sort of situation that Tom Elliot was trying to tease out, and I back him. Nevertheless, overall, I welcome the proposed amendment. Were compulsory purchase powers not in the Forestry Act (Northern Ireland) 1953?

2052. Mr Small: This is a new proposal.

2053. Mr McGlone: I am intrigued by the notion that there should not be a statutory code of practice.

2054. The Chairperson: The Office of the Legislative Counsel does not want to bother writing it.

2055. Mr McGlone: That is the point that I was trying to tease out. If people were to have some degree of security about the process through which they are likely to have to go, it would absolve the Department of a lot of its difficulties. Acquiring land by compulsory methods is not the best way to encourage landowners and people from rural backgrounds to interact with the Department.

2056. Mr Small: We took the view that the statute book already contains many examples of compulsory purchase powers, none of which are supported by a statutory code of practice, so introducing one in this instance would be a brand new approach and would break with precedent. I appreciate that that is not always a reason not to do something, but it was one of the points that were raised. In addition, the compulsory purchase process is so complex and time-consuming that it almost inevitably becomes an option of last resort. Even without a code of practice, that is how things work out in any given case. I appreciate the Committee’s desire for clarity and certainty, and a statutory code of practice would strengthen that position, so we will look at the proposal.

2057. I suppose we are trying to achieve a balance between the general duty to which clause 1 commits us and the powers that we need in the rest of the Bill to help us to deliver that duty. That does not mean that we need unreasonable powers, but we need sufficient powers to deliver the general duty.

2058. The Chairperson: You are not being pushed back on the ultimate right to have compulsory purchase powers. You are being pushed back on the intermediate step to using them, which could be seen on the face of the Bill and, from a public relations point of view, would make the Department look better.

2059. Mr Small: I have taken note of two issues that we will look at again: the temporary provision that Tom Elliott mentioned, and the idea of a statutory code of practice.

2060. Mr Pollen: This is what I was alluding to when we looked at clause 1. Clause 4(1) states: “The Department may use or develop forestry land for a purpose other than forestry."

2061. Clause 5(1) states that the Department can acquire land for:

“the carrying out of any of its functions under this Act."

2062. It seems to me that the Department’s scope has not been refined at all. Under clause 5, it will be able to carry out any of its functions with the support of compulsory purchase powers.

2063. Then Chairperson: According to the proposed amendment to clause 5(1), the Department can only use those powers: “in connection with providing or improving access to any land so as to facilitate the carrying out of any of its functions under this Act."

2064. The clause has been constrained to an access provision, which is the way that we asked for it to be framed. I understand your suspicions, and I want clarity, but the Department will not be able to go beyond that provision. Is my interpretation correct?

2065. Mr Small: Yes, that is right. We deliberately tried to narrow the scope of the clause to one of facilitating access.

2066. The Chairperson: Originally, clause 5(1) provided the Department with an open cheque book: “The Department may acquire compulsorily any land which it requires for the purposes of, or in connection with, the carrying out of any of its functions under this Act."

2067. That amounted to open season for the Department, but it has been narrowed down so that the only land that it can compulsorily purchase is any land that is for access to allow it to carry out its functions on its land or associated with that. It is now a narrow piece of legislation.

2068. Mr Pollen: It will still cause us concern that it is not clearly sufficiently narrow, and that concern has just been echoed in the Chamber.

2069. The Chairperson: If the Department wants our backing, the Committee would like to see a different schedule that would state that before it can come to compulsory acquisition, it must talk to the landowner about leasing the land and having some sort of interim measure before there would be any compulsory purchase, so that the notion of vesting would be a thing of the past — except in the last resort.

2070. Mr Pollen: Your comment, and that of Mr Small, about the complexity and the time-consuming nature and the fact there have not been any challenges in the past under similar provisions is causing our members an awful lot of concern.

2071. The Chairperson: It is very pricey.

2072. Mr Pollen: There is also the thought of going up against the might of the Department. If the Department wants something, the individual man will not be able to sustain a fight to achieve or maintain his rights.

2073. The Chairperson: We will come back to that matter. You have heard the consensus around the table that this could achieve our support, but we want this for that support.

2074. Mr Rupert Pigott (Confederation of Forest Industries): I welcome the clarification for improving access, but will that mean that the Forest Service will be able to act on behalf of the private sector to perform compulsory purchases, purely as a last resort?

2075. Mr Small: We discussed and dealt with that previously. That proposal was raised by the Committee and some stakeholders earlier, and we took legal advice from DSO on that point. The advice is that, to use compulsory purchase powers, the Department must go through a public interest test to be compatible with human rights legislation, and there must be a very clear public interest involved to justify the use of such extreme powers. The advice is that one needs to have a clear, tangible public benefit. The Department can demonstrate that public benefit in securing timber from its forests where there has been public investment in the past. It is much more difficult — DSO took the view that it was probably almost impossible — to demonstrate that same public interest when the powers are being used to take land from one private individual for the benefit of another private individual or concern. On that basis, we cannot use it in that way.

2076. The Chairperson: I do not think that you are entirely surprised by that.

2077. Mr Pigott: No.

2078. The Chairperson: If no other member wants to speak to clause 5, we move on to clause 6.

2079. Mr Small: The issue here was that there was no provision in the original Bill for woodland inventory. Comments were made that there should be that provision and, on reflection, the Department’s last paper to the Committee included a proposal to introduce a provision that would require us to maintain a woodland inventory of size and forest cover in Northern Ireland. In response to that, the Committee expressed some concern that the proposal was not going far enough and that issues around woodland type and location should also be included.

2080. The proposal that the Department is bringing forward now is that we will compile and maintain a woodland inventory covering location, size and woodland type. We talked about the difficulties and the burden of moving the inventory beyond that point to include issues such as the quantity of timber in a forest, the quality of timber, and flora and fauna issues, and the task that that would involve. We indicated that our preference was to restrict it to size, location and type of woodland.

2081. The Department feels that that should be the statutory obligation.

2082. The Committee also expressed concern that there was no requirement to carry out that process within a given time frame, that the process was open-ended and that, in practice, it could be many years before the Department compiled an inventory again. The Department has considered that point and proposed in the Bill that all that information will be refreshed and renewed every 10 years. That time frame was chosen because the long-term aspiration is to double forest cover over a 50-year period, and a 10-year slot would provide five fresh looks at how that longer-term target is being met.

2083. The Chairperson: The Committee made the novel suggestion that the Department should encourage people to supply it with information. Has the Department had a chance to consider our suggestion?

2084. Mr Small: That issue was discussed at the previous meeting when we talked about the felling licence application process that is to be introduced, and that may provide an opportunity to obtain that information. The Department is happy to include a provision on the application form that would allow individuals to provide that information if they were willing to do so. However, I am still not sure that the Department should require individuals to make that information available, because we want to keep the process as simple and straightforward as possible. It is a possible means of securing additional data, and the Department is happy to include it in that way.

2085. Mr Patrick Cregg (Woodland Trust): We welcome what David has proposed. However, we are keen that any inventory be map-based, preferably using a geographic information system (GIS), rather than have the Forest Service collect files of papers on various sites. We agree with David that, if possible, information should be collated on all sites over two hectares, as that would bring Northern Ireland into line with the national inventory of woodland and trees in Great Britain.

2086. One concern that we have over the fact that woodland cover is to be monitored only every 10 years is that that will make it impossible to judge how successful we have been in doubling woodland cover if we cannot measure the woodland loss in that 10-year period. We feel that the data must be updated yearly. Furthermore, I agree with the Chairperson that the cost of producing that information should be minimal, because many organisations — including my organisation, the RSPB, the National Trust and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) — already hold that information.

2087. The Chairperson: We will take those issues one at a time. How does the Department respond to the first issue of consistency with Great Britain?

2088. Mr Stuart Morwood (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): All the information collected would be GIS-based, involving the use of computerised mapping, spatial databases. That would fulfil all the requirements that Patrick mentioned.

2089. The Chairperson: As far as I understand it, Forest Service conducts research in that area for private companies. If that information is received and factored into the Department’s overview, I assume that it can be sold on to the private sector. Is that correct?

2090. Mr Morwood: Forest Service receives information from several public bodies. For example, our information on woodland is derived from the NIEA. That is the type of information that could be encompassed in the GIS. The Department does not purchase that information; it is made freely available to us.

2091. The Chairperson: That is good, because one of the big concerns is expense, and no one wants to create an additional or unnecessary burden. Patrick Cregg said that the RSPB and other organisations routinely gather such information. If that information can be used in a way that will help to create an overall picture, the Department should grasp that opportunity.

2092. Mr Morwood: The use of GIS will mean that the Department can analyse a wide range of layers of information, allowing it, for example, to ensure that there is no double counting. It will also allow the Department to cut through the systems and ensure that it is receiving all the available information.

2093. The Chairperson: Patrick, are you happy with that? We will return to the issue of woodlands being monitored on a 10-year basis in a moment.

2094. Mr Cregg: Excellent. There is no point in reinventing the wheel in Northern Ireland. I would be happy to replicate the successful GB model.

2095. The Chairperson: Does the 10-year plan offer a sufficiently robust approach? Should it be shortened? A proposal has been made to switch to a yearly programme.

2096. Mr Small: The changes that could be made through use of a year-on-year model would be minimal. We hope to see more forest creation in the years ahead, and at a better rate than was the case previously. Nevertheless, doubling or even trebling our current rate of forest creation will, year on year, result in only a small increase in overall forest cover.

2097. The Chairperson: In contrast, a programme of measuring change every 10 years might be too long a time between inventories. If such a programme were to come into operation today, it would mean that we would not revisit it until 2020. Could there be a compromise at five years?

2098. Mr Small: I do not know. Each year, we will set our own targets for forest creation and will report each year in our annual report on our achievement of those targets. There will be some assessment annually of what has been happening. That will focus primarily on woodland creation through the woodland grant scheme, capturing the kind of creation that the Woodland Trust is able to promote.

2099. The Chairperson: Is that a yes or a no?

2100. Mr Small: Our view is that, because we are looking at a 50-year period in which to double forest cover, breaking that into five 10-year periods is reasonable and will allow us to monitor trends as we move towards the 50-year target. I am not sure whether a five-year target would be of any great additional assistance in monitoring trends.

2101. Mr Cregg: A five-year target, coupled with the aspiration to double woodland cover in Northern Ireland, would mean that, at the end of the five-year period, we should have created an additional 8,000 hectares of woodland across the Province. As far as I am concerned, that is not insignificant. If we look at the situation annually, and if we are to achieve our targets — hopefully, the targets for which the Committee and the public will hold Forest Service accountable — 1,650 hectares per annum of new woodland will need to be produced to achieve that 50-year target. That is a significant amount of woodland, because 1,650 hectares is equivalent to 150 Windsor Parks or Clandeboye Parks. That would to be recorded, because we could not judge the success or failure of the targets that we aspire to unless we know what is there and what is being added year on year.

2102. The Chairperson: David, if it is not measured, it is not done. Your measurements are too broad.

2103. Mr Small: In fairness, Chairman, the predominant element of woodland creation each year will be that which is created through the woodland grant scheme. That would include the kind of woodland that the Woodland Trust encourages and promotes. Patrick is right: we need to double or treble our current rate of woodland creation. However, that is something that we will monitor every year, and we will record that information, and adjust and update our records accordingly.

2104. We are talking about a mechanism that will allow us to look at longer-term trends in our woodland inventory. We will monitor annually the woodland that we grant-aid and create. We will be able to see the beginning of a trend, but one cannot see a trend develop over a single year. Our feeling is that —

2105. The Chairperson: Is it not fair to say that you would see a trend over a five-year period?

2106. Mr Small: Over five years, yes.

2107. The Chairperson: Would you accept having a five-year period rather than a 10-year period?

2108. Mr Small: I do not know. Each year, we will carry out our own data recording of the woodland that we create, and we will adjust the baseline figure each year. We thought that to have a 10-year period was reasonable.

2109. Mr McGlone: I want to tie some matters down precisely, because several figures were mentioned as to how to quantify the development proposals.

2110. Forgive me for saying this, but you came out with two or three generalisations. The predominant woodland growth will be that which is funded through grant aid or that which is overseen by the Department. Not all woodland will be grant-aided, so how do you quantify the inventory? Every potential will exist for other organisations or individuals from private industry to plant or cut down trees.

2111. Mr Small: I appreciate that.

2112. Mr McGlone: The Department does not have the capacity to measure that. Therefore, how do you measure that unquantifiable element?

2113. Mr Small: On a year-to-year basis, even taking account of the —

2114. Mr McGlone: That was not my point. My point is that there is an element that cannot be gauged or measured. I am making the case for measuring it. Whether that is done annually or every five years is another issue. However, in the expansion and reduction of woodland, you are dealing with something that has an aspect — I do not know how significant an aspect — that is unquantifiable, and, therefore, unmeasured.

2115. Mr Small: I agree that there is an element that is unquantifiable, but our understanding is that that is a very small element. Perhaps Stuart can expand on that point.

2116. We will take away our 10-year proposal and look at it again in the context of a possible five-year proposal.

2117. Mr Morwood: I think —

2118. The Chairperson: Sorry, Stuart. That would be a useful compromise, and one that does not really ask that much of you.

2119. Mr Morwood: Our experience is that the vast majority of woodland creation occurs under the woodland grant scheme. However, you are quite right to say that the potential is there for an element of woodland to be created outside the schemes that the Department operates. However, the creation of new woodland is subject to the Environmental Impact Assessment (Forestry) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006. Therefore, if a landowner is creating woodland over a certain threshold, he is required to inform the Department. Likewise, if he is removing woodland over a certain threshold, he is required to inform the Department. That legislation is the basis on which we are kept aware of trends in woodland creation outside the woodland grant scheme.

2120. Mr McGlone: I may be being presumptuous, but the data that you have is fed into the data that you would be monitoring anyway.

2121. Mr Morwood: We will have access to data on deforestation under the aforementioned regulations.

2122. The Chairperson: Do any other Committee members wish to comment before we move on to clause 7?

2123. Mr Shannon: Have we received any confirmation around the recommendation that the Committee made at its previous meeting concerning clause 6 and the Department’s exemption under the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985? I am not sure whether the exemption that I asked for has been included in the redrafted clause. For example, in relation to the Game Preservation (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2002, which covers shooting deer and hares on other people’s land, we want the Department to be subject to —

2124. The Chairperson: We are dealing with clause 6, but we will come to clause 8 in a minute, Jim. Break your barrels, Jim.

2125. Mr Shannon: Hold fire?

2126. The Chairperson: Yes. Clause 7 deals with incidental powers. David, can you give us your view on that clause?

2127. Mr Small: The concern with clause 7 was over the wide, sweeping nature of the powers that the Department proposed in subsection (1), which would allow the Department to: “do anything which appears to it to be conducive or incidental to the discharge of its general duty".

2128. We accepted, straight away, that that power was too broad and sweeping.

2129. We plan to remove the offending words and narrow the powers that would be available to the Department. Those powers essentially revolve around entering into partnerships and agreements with other organisations or forming bodies corporate. The powers available to the Department have been narrowed to prescribe specifically those powers.

2130. Professor Sue Christie (Northern Ireland Environment Link): We welcome the changes that have been proposed to clause 7. However, we still think that it would be a good idea to have an independent committee of stakeholders rather than the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) approve the use of those powers. We accept the Department’s argument that there are already a number of committees involved. I see no reason why the roles of the existing committees could not be expanded, or why the committees could not be combined into one, to include that scrutiny role. We feel that an independent committee would reassure the public that the Department would not exercise draconian powers, which the clause could otherwise be seen to allow.

2131. Mr Small: Clause 7 will essentially allow the Department to enter into partnerships with groups to help us to deliver some of the Bill’s general aspirations. Those partnerships may be with local councils, a local community group, or something more formal, such as a body corporate. I am not quite sure what a stakeholder grouping would be considering when we enter such arrangements.

2132. Professor Christie: Our concern is not with that aspect of the clause but with the bit that refers back to subsection (2)(b) to (d) of clause 2, which concerns the principal powers of the Department to “dispose of", and so on. We are not concerned about the provisions for entering into partnership but about the referral back to clause 2 and clause 4.

2133. Mr Small: I can see how what you say is more relevant to clause 4, which deals with how the Department uses or develops forestry land. I suppose that the view is that if we are going to develop a piece of land for a tourism project or a renewable energy project, it will be subject to the normal planning process, with full public consultation and everything that goes with it. I would have thought that that would offer the public some degree of assurance about what is proposed. I do not know what an additional stakeholder grouping would add to that public process.

2134. Ms Christie: It would give the public an additional assurance that the Department was not engaging in activities that could be viewed as inappropriate. We feel that there are several areas of business in which an independent stakeholder body would offer assurance to the public and the House that the Department does not have such wide powers that it is able to enter into —

2135. The Chairperson: I think what you really want is for the Department to be obliged to listen to representations that are made, as opposed to its deciding to whom it should speak. Rather, there should be some balance. Is that a fair representation of your view?

2136. Ms Christie: That summarises it very well.

2137. The Chairperson: We know that you are totally genuine, David; it is your colleagues whom we do not trust. [Laughter.] Not the people whom you have brought with you, obviously.

2138. Mr Small: The proposed amended clause 4 will give the Department new powers. We are deliberately seeking those powers in order to enable us to make available the wider types of provision that people have been asking for, such as recreation, tourism and renewable energy. Proposed new subsection (2) of clause 4 requires the Department to have “due regard" to the general duty. There is, therefore, a check and balance built into that clause. As I said, any new proposals that are made will be subject to the planning process, like any other form of development, and the Planning Service will exercise a form of control.

2139. The idea of having an advisory body or group of stakeholders has been raised before, and we have responded by indicating that established processes are in place whereby the Department will consult, and then create forums to discuss new ideas or proposals. We question what a separate grouping would offer that we cannot already achieve through existing processes. I suppose that your suggestion falls into the same category.

2140. Ms Christie: We are saying that it would not need to be an additional body but could be an existing body with an expanded remit.

2141. The Chairperson: There is a way in which to try to achieve that. I understand part of the dilemma. For the purposes of the exercising of its functions under part 1 of the Bill, the Department lists paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of clause 7(2) as things that the Department can do. We are saying that another subsection could be inserted that states that, instead of “may", the Department “will" consult already established organisations that might have an interest. That simply places the obligation on the Department to consult. Let us be honest: you are going to consult anyway. You have to consult. If that provision were included in the Bill, and, as I said, you would be doing it anyway, that at least gives the Department leverage to say that because the Department could be held to account, an organisation must consult it.

2142. Mr Small: The developments that we propose under clause 4 require public consultation under the UK woodland assurance scheme (UKWAS).

2143. The Chairperson: That is what I am saying: if you will be doing it anyway, why not include it in the Bill?

2144. Mr Small: There are two proposals. That is one, while the other is for an advisory body.

2145. The Chairperson: That is a separate issue. That becomes a question of to whom you listen. If you go out and consult, say, all the stakeholders who are in this room anyway, the fact that they are not a unilateral body is as irrelevant as the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. The fact is that you consult those groups because they have expertise in various areas. To me, that is a separate debate. The issue is that it be included in the Bill that you will consult them. At least that assures those groups that their views are expressed and their voices heard.

2146. Mr Small: We will consider that proposal. When we propose a development, whether it be for tourism or recreation, we must go through a form of consultation anyway. In developing the likes of a recreation strategy, we meet groups that we believe have an interest. That could be the Tourist Board, councils or CAAN. If we are dealing with such issues as forest expansion, we meet groups that we believe have a legitimate interest. They include the Woodland Trust, the RSPB and similar organisations.

2147. The Chairperson: Exactly. You do that anyway.

2148. Mr Small: We do do it. However, we tend to do it in a focused way, depending on the issue.

2149. The Chairperson: I am asking you to give expression to the fact that you are going to do that anyway by including a subsection or paragraph to that effect in clause 7. Come back to us on that.

2150. Mr Shannon: I want to return to an earlier point. Is it possible to consider suggestions that the Chairman and other Committee members have made about having an Ofcom-type organisation — I am not sure whether that is a good or bad example — when it comes to issues and decisions that are made by Forest Service? Can there be a body that assesses independently whether those decisions have been made correctly and fairly? There would then be a system under which those decisions could be appealed quickly and overturned.

2151. The reason that I ask is because whether the matter is tree-felling licences, compulsory acquisition of land, accessing private land or even the tourism projects that you mentioned earlier, David, there needs to be a system that everyone believes results in equal treatment. Perhaps by having such a body would enable that fairness, clarity and transparency — words that are used constantly at present. The Chairman has already suggested that. Could that be done? That is my suggestion. I am not sure how you feel about that, gentlemen.

2152. The Chairperson: Do you not have an interest to declare, Jim? Surely you are with Ofcom, given that your phone rings that often.

2153. Mr Shannon: My phone is on silent.

2154. The Chairperson: We have had that discussion. Officials will get back to us on that point. Do you want to elaborate further, David?

2155. Mr Small: No, except to say that we will look at that proposal again.

2156. The Chairperson: We shall move on to clause 8. The Committee Clerk advises me that this discussion should be fairly straightforward. It deals with control of animals in forests.

2157. Mr Small: Chairman, over the past two or three weeks, we have proposed a number of amendments to clause 8 to take account of comments that were made by the Committee and stakeholders. At our previous meeting, the Committee took the view that, more or less, the clause was acceptable. Proposals to amend the clause have now been made on the basis of earlier discussions.

2158. The only other point worth making about clause 8 is that it is not very different from the 1953 Act. Its provisions have largely been carried forward. It is consistent with the obligations and requirements of the 1985 Order and has been agreed with Department of the Environment colleagues (DOE) to ensure that it is consistent.

2159. Mr Savage: My only concern over clause 8 is with subsection (3), which states:

“The occupier of the land may at any time kill, take or destroy any wild animals".

2160. I assume that “wild animals" includes deer, and hares other than the Irish hare. The landowner and Forest Service should each have adequate fencing erected so that no animal can trespass on either portion of land. That fencing should be good enough to protect trees, or whatever. That is a grey area and could cause confusion. I know that it is very hard to keep some animals out, but —

2161. The Chairperson: Why does the Department not have private sector bailiffs to manage such things so that when a shooting has to take place, it is done by an expert? Let us be honest: some people who may be doing the killing really do not give a toss about how they shoot a deer, whereas others will take great interest and use precision to ensure that it is done humanely and appropriately.

2162. Mr Small: The Department has a well-managed process. We have BASC-qualified wildlife wardens who are very experienced in culling.

2163. The Chairperson: Are all the Department’s stalkers qualified?

2164. Mr Small: Yes. We adopt a specific approach to managing deer in our forests and the level of damage that they cause. We set culling targets based on that.

2165. The Chairperson: How many wardens does the Department have?

2166. Mr Small: We have three full-time wildlife wardens.

2167. The Chairperson: For the whole of Ulster?

2168. Mr Small: Yes.

2169. The Chairperson: Busy boys.

2170. Mr Small: Yes; they are. They are fully employed. If the Department felt that it needed another warden, that is another resource that we would have to try to deal with. At present, however, we are satisfied that we are managing deer numbers in our forests and minimising the damage that is being caused. We have experienced people who do that for the Department, and they take full account of the obligations of the 1985 Order when they carry out their deer management duties. We are satisfied that the system is working.

2171. The Chairperson: How many deer are shot by people under the Department’s control who are not wardens?

2172. Mr Small: Last year, we culled 247 deer across all Forest Service woodland.

2173. The Chairperson: Were they all shot by that group of three?

2174. Mr Small: Yes, by our three wildlife wardens. Their culling obviously follows from their observations to try to establish the number of deer in the forests and their assessment of the level and type of damage being caused. They then set cull targets, which will keep deer numbers at a sustainable level.

2175. Mr Savage: I asked that question because many people who have land close to forests would be signed up to the countryside management scheme. They must have good boundary fencing, with five strands of wire. One requirement of scheme membership is to protect wildlife. It baffles me to hear that 247 deer were killed last year. I did not think that there were that many deer in Northern Ireland.

2176. Clause 8 concerns me. Could it be reworded in such a way as to protect the Department and the farmer? Something is missing in the clause that needs to be addressed.

2177. Mr Small: We acknowledge that good fencing on the boundaries is one way of trying to address the issue. We certainly would not want to include anything in the Bill that created statutory obligations on landowners to properly or effectively fence their boundaries. However, there is an expectation that every woodland landowner will do his best.

2178. Mr Savage: Are there specific areas in which the most wildlife trespasses? What areas are they?

2179. Mr Small: The culling statistic that I cited with respect to last year was compiled from 20 different woodland areas right across Northern Ireland. This is not something located in one area; it relates to management across all the forests in the North.

2180. The Chairperson: Does a person have a right to roam and shoot on his own land as a result of this?

2181. Mr Morwood: No.

2182. Mr Small: Clause 8 allows a woodland owner — and that includes the Forest Service — to cull deer on his own woodland.

2183. The Chairperson: So trespass is not affected by this Bill.

2184. Mr Small: The person will not be able to go onto the adjacent land of another owner and cull deer.

2185. The Chairperson: A forestry stalker can go onto anyone else’s land.

2186. Mr Small: Under clause 9, we are trying to secure a power that will enable us to go onto adjacent land. That is to try to deal with situations where the deer have roamed. Roaming is in the nature of deer, and there may be occasions when an area of woodland is simply too small to enable culling to take place. To meet all the obligations of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, one must follow a certain process, and sometimes it is not possible, within a small area of woodland, to do that. One needs open space. Only in such circumstances would we want to use the power in clause 9, which enables the Forest Service to go onto a private piece of land to cull a deer, but only after consultation with the landowner and after asking him to take action.

2187. The Chairperson: One needs a clear line of sight to cull deer, is that not so?

2188. Mr Small: Yes.

2189. The Chairperson: So the deer have to be on open land to be shot, which more than likely would not be forestry land. It would be adjacent land.

2190. Mr Small: In our own forests, we have a lot of open space. We are required to keep it open for reasons of certification. In our own forests, we can cull deer and manage deer numbers because we have that open space. Private woodland owners who own one hectare of woodland will not have open space and will be unable to deal with a deer problem, if there is one.

2191. The Chairperson: Of the 247 deer that were shot, how many were shot on Forest Service land?

2192. Mr Small: They were all shot on our own land.

2193. The Chairperson: That poses a question. I do not think you have a problem.

2194. Mr Small: We are consistently told, and have been for many years, that deer numbers will increase. If there were to be no more forest creation, we would not need this power, because we can deal with the current deer situation and we believe that we do. However, we aim to double the amount of forest cover in Northern Ireland, and that additional half will be on private land; it will be private woodland where we cannot interfere. We cannot go into the forest of a private woodland owner and control his deer for him. However, the private owners will find it extremely difficult to do that themselves, because they may not have the expertise to do it or because their forest area is so small that they do not have the scope to do so. They will not be able to go onto the land of adjacent owners to do it.

2195. The Chairperson: You are legislating for a problem that does not yet exist.

2196. Mr Small: That is right. I think that that reflects the fact that this legislation will, I hope, provide the statutory framework for forestry for the next 20 or 30 years.

2197. The Chairperson: Is there not a tourist or sporting opportunity here, of which you are depriving people?

2198. Mr Small: No. Clause 8 is a provision allowing a woodland owner to deal with a deer problem in his own forest if he is able to do so. If he has adequate open space to deal with the problem but does not have the expertise to cull deer, there is nothing to stop him calling in an organisation that specialises in culling deer to do it. I suppose that there is an opportunity in that.

2199. The Chairperson: He might also sell the shooting rights.

2200. Mr Small: He could.

2201. The Chairperson: That is possibly quite a lucrative opportunity.

2202. Mr Small: There will be nothing to stop a private woodland owner from doing that. Clause 9 will only be required in circumstances where a deer problem begins to emerge — that would be evident from deer numbers and from the damage being caused — and where our consultation with the private owner of woodland, adjacent to the forest, has not resulted in any action being taken. Again, we would consult the private woodland owner to indicate that there is a deer problem in the area and that we know that they are roaming onto land. We give them three months to try to address that problem through, for example, contacting a specialist group who can cull deer. It could be a lucrative business for people on whose land deer are roaming. We will only use the proposed powers in circumstances where that does not happen and where we know that forest, particularly young woodland, is still being damaged.

2203. Mr Morwood: With regard to Mr Savage’s query about fencing of woodlands, I think that the implication was that we should fence woodlands to prevent entry of deer. One difficulty, particularly for private woodland owners who own very small woodlands, is that the cost of building the necessary fencing can be disproportionate to the overall cost of establishing and maintaining the plantation. In essence, the better option to manage the problem is to reduce the deer population to a level that causes an acceptable level of damage in the forest. There is an acceptance that forests will always be damaged.

2204. Mr Shannon: I am quite pleased about the significant changes that have been made; you have done a lot of good things. I gave you a bit of hassle earlier on, but when you do it right I will tell you. Under the legislative power that you have, the occupier of the land may take, kill or destroy any deer or hares on the land or on adjoining land that the person also occupies. Does the same rule apply to the adjoining landowners? Can they enter Forest Service land to control deer and hares that are causing problems on their land?

2205. The Chairperson: Pests owned by the Forest Service.

2206. Mr Small: We have no proposal for that.

2207. Mr Shannon: I am sure that those three stockers are terribly busy. There might a possibility that, at some time in the future, you would want to ensure that people have the right to control pests that destroy woodland on their land.

2208. Mr Small: We are satisfied that deer numbers in forests are under control at the moment. If, in five or 10 years’ time, we feel that that is becoming too difficult, we may have to look at other options to address that, possibly by increasing the number of wildlife wardens or looking at an alternative methodology.

2209. Mr Shannon: Is it not a good idea to include that proviso in the legislation? If, as you rightly say, forestry land increases in the way that you and I hope that it will, is it not good to have the legislative power to address that rather than leave it to the future and look for something then?

2210. Mr Small: I am not sure that we need legislative power. If we hold the shooting rights in our forest estate but struggle to deal with deer management, there is nothing to stop us entering an agreement with an external group of deer experts who can go in and cull deer under some suitable arrangement. That is possible.

2211. Mr Shannon: You can do that at this moment in time?

2212. Mr Small: Yes.

2213. Mr Pollen: I saw in the minutes of last week’s meeting that Mr Small undertook to consult with BASC —

2214. Mr Small: I think that it was the British Deer Society (BDS).

2215. Mr Pollen: No; the Hansard report says the British Association for Shooting and Conservation.

2216. Mr Small: Are you sure?

2217. Mr Pollen: I am certain. I know that you have been in touch with BDS, but the Hansard report says BASC.

2218. The Chairperson: Say that again?

2219. Mr Pollen: The Hansard report records that, at the meeting on 1 February, Forest Service undertook to consult BASC.

2220. The Chairperson: I think that I asked that question.

2221. Mr Small: You did.

2222. Mr Pollen: You did. There was an exchange about it, and you said that you welcomed the fact that they were consulting us. We have not heard from them yet. Mr Small has just said that there is potential to bring in other groups to do deer stalking. I will put on record the fact that we met Forest Service two or three years ago to put forward that proposal, alongside the BDS. The Forest Service very nimbly missed the point that we were trying to get access for recreational stalking on Forest Service lands and said that it was able to meet the requirement for deer stalking itself with its three rangers. It appears that a lot of statistics are being bandied around, but the devil is always in the detail. The Forest Service has three rangers covering its estate, which is about 60,000 hectares, is it?

2223. Mr Small: Yes.

2224. Mr Pollen: Therefore, one ranger can deal with 20,000 hectares. Taking into account the 240-odd deer, that means that each ranger is taking 80 deer from 20,000 hectares. Therefore, people who have one hectare of woodland, which the Department is proposing to take powers for in clause 9, really have no problem — statistically, it is absolutely insignificant. If you can only take 80 deer off 20,000 hectares, then to be looking for legislative powers to allow the Department to go in and cull deer on sites of one hectare around the country is, I suggest —

2225. The Chairperson: It is a bit Communist.

2226. Mr Pollen: It is.

2227. Mr Small: We are being told that, as private woodland expands in size, there is the possibility of deer herd numbers increasing. We are trying to make a provision that would allow us, having gone through the process of making the landowner aware and giving him the opportunity to try to deal with a situation if it emerged, to be able to go in and deal with the problem as a last resort.

2228. The Chairperson: But this is admittedly a problem does not exist.

2229. Mr Small: If the problem never emerges, then the Department will not need those powers.

2230. The Chairperson: Why are you legislating in such precise detail for something that does not yet exist, if the issue is about good husbandry?

2231. Mr Small: Because the advice from groups such as BASC is that we are not managing deer numbers effectively and that we are likely to see an increase in numbers. We are taking a discretionary power that would allow us to deal with the situation in circumstances where that happened. As I said, it would only be used after we have gone through the process of consulting with the landowner and giving him the opportunity to deal with the situation, which might involve contacting a group who could do that for him.

2232. Mr Pollen: If I can cut in there —

2233. The Chairperson: Could we live without clause 9?

2234. Mr Small: I think, today, we probably could. However, the Bill has to provide a legislative framework for the next 20 or 30 years. We do not want a serious problem to develop that we would have no ability to deal with.

2235. The Chairperson: Your evidence is that there is not a problem, that there has not been a problem since 1953, and that we are legislating for something that might become a problem. You are telling us that removing clause 9 would not cause a significant different to the legislation —

2236. Mr Small: Today.

2237. The Chairperson: Today, and probably, realistically, for the next 10 to 15 years. Why do we not cut to the chase and remove the clause, have a wrap-up on good husbandry practice, etc, and take the clause out altogether?

2238. Mr Small: I made the point earlier that we are trying to balance our ability to deliver the general duty under clause 1. We have spent quite a bit of time trying to get clause 1 right and expanding the duties under clause 1, particularly the duty around sustainable forest management. Our view is that protecting woodlands is one part of sustainable forest management. If we do not have the provisions that enable us to do that, it will make it difficult for us to deliver clause 1. We are trying to get a balance.

2239. The Chairperson: I do not mind your getting a balance, but I do not see the point of putting something in the Bill when there is no problem, and legislating for it and getting worked up on it. I am not accusing you of getting worked up, but you know what I mean. As you said, if the clause were removed, it would not really change things dramatically. It is something that you could come back to later and amend. If there was a noticeable problem in 10 or 15 years, this piece of very good legislation could be easily amended.

2240. Mr Pollen: That is the best suggestion that I have heard. That would remove most of my association’s concerns about the Bill; we welcome and support a lot of its other provisions. However, what is being included here is wholly unrealistic.

2241. I will pick out a couple of examples that undermine the premise that has been put forward. Clause 9 refers to “land A" and “land B" and defines land B as any land that “adjoins land A". The whole island of Ireland adjoins the Stormont estate, so that potentially gives you the power to go anywhere to achieve your objectives. It is not limited. The Bill does not say that land B must adjoin land A and be within 500 m; it says “or … within 500 metres".

2242. Clause 9 also calls for three months’ notice. What if three months’ notice were given at the start of the close season? That would require does and hinds to be shot when they are pregnant or lactating. If the occupier were not to do it because they felt that that was an unacceptable way to proceed, the Department could overrule them and carry that out.

2243. When we gave evidence before Christmas, we raised the question of what would happen if the landowner did not give approval to the Department. The Department could go on to land with its rifles and shoot without the approval of the landowner. The Bill contains no provision to square it with firearms legislation. The Chairperson’s suggestion that clause 9 be removed would make the Bill much more workable.

2244. The Chairperson: There is a legislative device that can be used to say that legislation might be introduced in the future to cover the power “to control animals on land adjacent to, etc". A minor amendment could be made 10 years from now or when it is required. That would take the heat out of the Bill. I think that that is a very good suggestion, and I do not mind saying so.

2245. Mr Small: We will take that away.

2246. Mr Pollen: Will you take the clause out or take it away?

2247. Mr Small: We will take the issue away and consider and reflect on it. We will report back to the Committee.

2248. Mr Pollen: Clause 11 contains provision for exemption from conviction under the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 and the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928. I do not have a copy of the 1985 Order with me, and I am not clear what is now being proposed.

2249. The Chairperson: We will return to that. I have a question on that.

2250. Mr Small: Mr Pollen raised a point about the Department’s meeting BASC. We were about to arrange a meeting with BASC, but we saw mention in Hansard of the British Deer Society, so we arranged a meeting with that organisation. It may be that there are three Hansard reports running around, because we have had a sequence of several different meetings. The reference to meeting BASC may be included in a report of an earlier meeting. The one that we read contained an obligation to meet BDS. When we get last week’s Hansard report, we will look for a reference to meeting BASC.

2251. The Chairperson: Last week’s Hansard report, which is published on the Internet, refers to a meeting with BASC. The important point is that you will have that meeting.

2252. Mr W Clarke: Given that you are taking clause 9 away and having a look at it, I will wait until you come back.

2253. The Chairperson: We now move to clause 10.

2254. Mr Small: The proposals to amend clause 10 acknowledge the Committee’s concerns. Clause 10 provides the ability for the Department to go on to other people’s land to remove vegetation that we believe to cause a fire risk. Some concern was raised about the definition of “uncultivated land" and the use of the word “vegetation". We agreed to look at that, and I hope to bring proposals to the Committee later this week to confirm more clearly how we see that clause operating, to confirm the types of vegetation that are talking about and to prescribe more clearly what the clause means.

2255. The Chairperson: The point that has been reiterated to me is that, if the Department wishes to create a firebreak, it should do so on its own land. We have made that point to you on a number of occasions.

2256. Mr Savage: Clause 10 is self-explanatory. It is common sense.

2257. The Chairperson: Mr Small will come back with what is meant by “uncultivated land" and will clarify the circumstances under which the clause will apply.

2258. Mr Small: We will consider the definition of “uncultivated land" and the type of vegetation that the Bill will try to address. It is clear from some previous meetings that the Committee is concerned that the Department might misuse that power. That is not our intention, but if we can define more clearly the circumstances that we are likely to deal with, it may be more obvious to the Committee why the provisions are necessary. We hope to bring that advice later this week.

2259. The Chairperson: We move to clause 11. Can the Department explain its proposed amendment and the relevance of section 7(1)(a) and section 7A(1)(a) of the Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928? That seems to be the basis of the amendment.

2260. Mr Small: I am not sure whether I can go into that level of detail. The references to the 1928 Act and the 1985 Order are protections which protect the Department against those specific provisions. Some of those deal with animals that are protected under schedule 5 to the 1985 Order and would have given us protection. We would have been in contravention of article 10(1) of the 1985 Order if we had killed any animals listed in schedule 5. We are not doing that any more, so we have removed the protection. Similarly, as we have agreed amendments with the Committee, other protections will no longer be needed. The protection under article 19(2) of the 1985 Order, which was about killing at night, will no longer be needed. Therefore, we will be removing that protection. I can put this in writing —

2261. The Chairperson: I want an explanatory note on that. It is probably straightforward, as you say, but it would be useful to get an explanatory note.

2262. Mr Small: I can provide that in writing. Without having immediate reference to what those specific clauses refer to, it can be difficult.

2263. The Chairperson: I want to turn to fees and Part 3 of the Bill, which deals with felling licences. I understand that you want that matter to be resolved by the next meeting. The Committee is opposed to the levying of any fees that are not applied in the rest of the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. As has been made clear to us in public evidence sessions, it would be perverse to apply fees, and it would go against the interests of the people who try to make a living from forestry. Have you a solution to that point, or will you have a solution by the next meeting?

2264. Mr Small: I do not have a solution today. I hope to have a solution later this week, and we will communicate it to the Committee as soon as we have it, or by next week’s meeting. We are sympathetic to the points raised by the Committee with regard to the need to secure parity with GB and the South, where fees are waived. We are awaiting advice and comments from some of our colleagues. As soon as I have those, we will be able to make a judgement on the extent to which we can waive the fees or deal with the fee issue. I hope to be able to come back to the Committee on that later this week.

2265. The Chairperson: Following our most recent meeting, we wrote to you on 3 February about stakeholders who are concerned with the processes and time frames around applying for felling licences. We requested that the Forest Service consider drawing up a forestry charter which would clarify and define the service which any applicant can expect from the Forest Service and set out the timeline for actions from the point of application through to the granting or refusal of a felling licence. We also requested that the Forest Service seek further legal clarification on the issue of payment of compensation in cases in which a felling licence has been refused. Have you any response to those points?

2266. Mr Small: We are content to develop a charter which would set out how we would deal with felling applications and some of the issues around timelines. We are content with that proposal.

2267. We were surprised at the Committee’s comment on compensation, because we have reviewed GB’s Forestry Act 1967 and our understanding is that compensation provisions are included in England, Scotland and Wales. We understand that they may not have been used very often and that compensation may not have been paid very often, but the provisions do exist in the 1967 Act. I suppose that the Human Rights Act 1998 has brought a sharper focus to compensation more recently, because it requires that a proportionate approach be taken when an individual’s right to use his or her property is interfered with. Our advice, as I have rehearsed, is that if we are to seek to do that through the felling licensing system, there needs to be an appropriate balancing tool in place, and that is the compensation provision.

2268. The Chairperson: Have you taken legal advice on that?

2269. Mr Small: Yes.

2270. The Chairperson: I would not mind a synopsis of that, if possible. We got that steer from the head of grants in the Forestry Commission. That is why we posed the question.

2271. Mr M McCann: The 1967 Act contains a compensation provision. In fact, we based our proposals on the principles of that Act, which we ran past the DSO.

2272. Mr Small: The other point that you raised was on the subject of tree preservation orders (TPOs). You suggested that the compensation provisions have changed, and they have. Although compensation provisions are still in place in the TPO system, compensation can no longer be secured for development value lost as the result of a TPO decision. It was that element that was creating very large compensation payments. In this Bill, the Department has limited any compensation payable to the loss in timber value; therefore, it will not be a free-for-all. It will be prescribed and restricted, and that will limit the amount of compensation that would be payable if the Department refused permission to fell.

2273. Mr Shannon: I am sorry; I am juking in and out. I am supposed to be speaking in the Chamber, and I was trying to see where I was. However, I am not due to speak until after Question Time.

2274. The Chairperson: Do you know where you are now?

2275. Mr Shannon: I always know where I am, Chairman; I just wanted to know where I was on the speaking list in the Chamber.

2276. I am sorry to go back, but I also feel that clause 9 is unnecessary and should be scrapped. I understand that the Department will be looking at that. Scrapping the clause would reflect the views of the majority on this Committee and many of those who have made a contribution to its proceedings. We are all for legislation if it is necessary, but, if it is not, do not bother doing it.

2277. Mr Cregg: I want to recap on the issue of compensation, because I have done a little bit of research on it. Mr Small is quite right that, under the Planning (Trees) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 and the Planning (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, provision is made for compensation where permission to fell trees has been denied. However, I suggest that the Forest Service should use the same language in the Forestry Bill that is used in the 2003 Order, which closes all of the loopholes that allow people to exploit the opportunity to make money.

2278. As the Chairman said the last time we met, as the owners of ancient woodland the Woodland Trust could apply on an annual basis to the Department for permission to fell its woodlands, and, when refused permission, could ask for compensation. We are a charity, and that could be a nice earner.

2279. More generally, as a conservation charity, the Woodland Trust sees the felling controls as one of the most important tools in the legislation. However, it is concerned at the Department’s continued reluctance to put a presumption against the granting of felling licences on ancient woodland into writing. We can see no reason why there should be such reluctance. PPS 9 — the planning policy statement in England — and PPS 2 — which the Minister of the Environment here is about to release — both contain references to ancient woodland and the necessity to conserve it. We would like to see a presumption against the felling of ancient woodland in the black and white so that future generations and future occupiers of Mr Small’s post are aware of it.

2280. Ancient woodland in Northern Ireland makes up less than 1% of the land area or 10,000 hectares. Over the past 40 years we have lost 13% of it, because of the lack of a requirement for a felling licence. The Bill is a golden opportunity to put down a presumption against any further loss of ancient woodland in black and white once and for all.

2281. The Chairperson: Special protection for ancient woodland, Mr Small?

2282. Mr Small: The Department has looked at that issue and discussed the issue of presumption against felling. We have discussed it with the Woodland Trust as well, and we both accepted that, as part of the normal process of managing a piece of ancient woodland, there will be occasions when some form of felling is necessary. That is what made the Department take a step back from a presumption against such felling.

2283. I suppose, Patrick, that we are all agreed about the desire to protect ancient woodland as far as we can. Through this process, we will seek, as far as we can within the confines of human rights, to do that.

2284. The Chairperson: Is the felling licence for every tree or is it for a certain number?

2285. Mr Small: It is for a volume of timber. Is that correct, Stuart?

2286. Mr Morwood: It is for a volume of timber over a specified area.

2287. Mr Small: It could amount to one large oak tree.

2288. Mr Morwood: It could cover the thinning of individual trees throughout a woodland area. The thinning would be subject to the felling licence, but, in itself, the operation can enhance the biodiversity of the woodland. The other issue to bear in mind is that a private owner of that ancient woodland will still wish to derive some tangible benefits in the way of timber. It is a question of how that is done. That should then be prescribed in accordance with good forestry practice as set out in the felling management plan.

2289. The Chairperson: How do you define “ancient woodland"?

2290. Mr Morwood: Ancient woodland is woodland that is identified on the ancient woodland inventory. Patrick Cregg mentioned that there are approximately 10,000 hectares of that woodland in Northern Ireland. That includes ancient woodland and other long-established woodland, both of which are divided into a number of different categories. We also have to bear in mind that such woodland could have conifer plantation on it. It does not necessarily have to include native woodland species. The resource effectively amounts to approximately 10,000 hectares in a wide variety of states, which will require —

2291. The Chairperson: I was not asking a trick question, nor was I testing you. I know that you know what “ancient woodland" is. However, should it be defined in the legislation? It is not defined in clause 35, which deals with interpretation. If ancient woodland were to be defined in that clause, it would go some way to protecting that woodland without taking the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut. It would allow for the thinning out, protection and removal of conifers where necessary, but the protection of the most important ancient woodland could be afforded if it were to be defined in clause 35.

2292. Mr Morwood: If we are looking for specific definitions of ancient woodland, we would refer back to the UK forestry standard, with its appropriate guidelines. That is where one can go into the detail of what the various states of ancient woodland comprise. Where we indicate that the woodland will be managed in accordance with good forestry practice, it will incorporate the definition.

2293. I am conscious that it is useful to have reference to the UK forestry standard.

2294. The Chairperson: Can you designate it?

2295. Mr Morwood: The precise definition can change slightly over time. It is not a precise subject.

2296. The Chairperson: Why do you not designate the reference to the standard?

2297. Mr Morwood: Let us suppose, for example, that we made reference to the UK forestry standard. That standard is currently being revised after consultation. My concern is simply that the standard is subject to change over time.

2298. The Chairperson: We recognise that it is right that the standard be subject to change, but we should have a rule of thumb that, under clause 35, which, as I said, deals with interpretation, the definition of “ancient woodland" should be checked against the current standing of the UK forestry standard.

2299. Mr Morwood: The UK forestry standard is the Government’s approach to sustainable forest management, to which the Department is committed.

2300. The Chairperson: The Bill is 19 pages long, yet it includes no definition of “ancient woodland". A definition could be included by designating the UK forestry standard as part of the definition.

2301. Mr Morwood: Reference to the forestry standard as good forestry practice could be a mechanism that we would consider.

2302. Mr Cregg: Perhaps I am naive. There are 2,500 woods in the Province, comprising 10,000 hectares. Those are generally accepted as being the Rolls-Royce of woodland in Northern Ireland. When we created our inventory at end of the last millennium, we agreed with Forest Service, Government and the erstwhile Environment and Heritage Service which woods were worth capturing and protecting.

2303. We all agreed to include everything in the first edition Ordnance Survey map, and everything that could be traced back to pre-1600. We came up with those 2,500 woods, which are the cream of woodlands in the Province, and less than 1% of the land area. I am at a loss to understand why there is a reluctance to grant those woods absolute protection. Perhaps one of the easiest ways in which to do that is to include something in the legislation that says that there will be no net loss in the area of woodland that is on the ancient woodland inventory.

2304. The Chairperson: That is a straightforward question.

2305. Mr Morwood: Provision of a felling licence to an ancient woodland of the category that Patrick describes does not effectively mean loss of that woodland. Thinning and felling in ancient woodland in accordance with good forestry practice can be quite beneficial to that woodland’s biodiversity. We have to separate in our minds that felling or thinning in a woodland is a forest operation, which, when carried out properly —

2306. The Chairperson: You are not facing opposition on that point. You said that there is an industry standard, and people would accept that. However, why the reluctance to designate the agreed UK forestry standard in the legislation as a definition of ancient woodland, and protect ancient woodland in that way?

2307. Mr Small: The Department would be more open to that idea than to the absolute presumption. Our difficulty with the absolute presumption is that some sites on the ancient woodland inventory are conifer plantation. It would be good at some point to remove the conifer plantation and replant appropriate native woodland.

2308. The Chairperson: Will you then designate the forestry standard in the interpretation clause?

2309. Mr Small: Possibly. I would like to take advice on that. It is not our standard but a UK-wide forestry standard, which has been the subject of recent UK-wide consultation.

2310. The Chairperson: Would that help, Patrick?

2311. Mr Cregg: That certainly would help. I remind David that the Department is a signatory to the UK forestry standard here in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it would be beholden on the Department to do that. I do not want to prolong the debate, but Forest Service, because of its certification, has an absolute duty to restore back to what they were sites that have been degraded as a result of being planted with conifers. That will mean removing conifers, but it will mean putting back native trees.

2312. Mr Small: It could also involve saving forests.

2313. The Chairperson: Will you come back to the Committee on that point?

2314. Mr Small: Yes.

2315. Mr W Clarke: There should be a presumption against granting a felling licence for ancient woodlands. I am not sure either why the Department is resistant to that. Both sides seem to be calling for the same thing. If we presume that no felling licence will be granted, the owner would have to go to the Department and outline the tree surgery, thinning and other work required to remove conifers.

2316. After it is presented with the management plan, and if officials are of the opinion that felling would be beneficial for that forest, the Department would issue a felling licence. Surely, then, we can go ahead and include that provision in the Bill.

2317. Mr Small: The Bill requires any individual who wants to fell a piece of woodland to outline to the Department the obligations that you have described. That is already a requirement in the Bill. We are debating something further to that: an absolute presumption against felling on ancient woodland sites. However, an ancient woodland site may be filled with conifers that we want to get rid of, through felling, and replace with appropriate native woodland.

2318. Mr W Clarke: There used to be a presumption against building in the countryside unless certain criteria were met. That is the same as the presumption against granting felling licences for ancient woodlands, because criteria must be met before a felling licence will be granted. Those criteria include the removal of conifers to thin the forest, for its well-being and for biodiversity, and the completion of necessary tree surgery. Those criteria should be met before a felling licence is granted.

2319. Mr Small: There is no difficulty around granting felling licences in areas of broadleaf native woodland on ancient sites, because our expectation is that that woodland would be replaced with something similar. A difficulty exists where there is a conifer plantation on an ancient woodland site and around how the compensation provisions will trigger, if required. We would not object to such a conifer plantation being felled. However, our preference would be to require an appropriate restocking with native woodland or broadleaf. We believe that that is when the compensation provisions would be triggered. If we force restocking on a private woodland owner, compensation provisions would be triggered under the Human Rights Act 1998.

2320. We do not necessarily have a presumption against that type of felling, and we view as a good thing getting rid of conifers and getting broadleaf trees on to a site. That is why I am unsure about the absolute presumption against felling. Of the 10,000 hectares of ancient woodland sites, approximately 6,000 are conifer; therefore, more than half the ancient woodland sites in Northern Ireland are planted with conifer. To create a presumption against felling those conifer plantations, which we want to get rid of and replace with broadleaf, does not make sense. The focus should be on restocking.

2321. The Chairperson: I suggest designating the UK forestry standard. That would allow for the clearing of conifer, where necessary for good management, but it would also set the standard that the area is one that is special.

2322. Mr Small: We would probably be content to consider a properly designated reference to the forestry standard or an acceptable definition of “ancient woodland". However, to carry that through to an absolute requirement to replace a conifer plantation with broadleaf trees would trigger the compensation provisions. Through the woodland grant scheme, we would hope to persuade people to replace conifer with broadleaf, and we would refer them to the UK forestry standard. We may designate that standard and its obligations around assessing the site, looking for evidence of ancient woodland and taking appropriate restocking action. That would be done instead of an absolute presumption to put in place native woodland, which would create compensation pressures.

2323. Mr Elliott: Thank you for that explanation. Ancient woodland certainly has a different meaning to that which I had interpreted. For clarification, 60% of forest classified as ancient woodland is conifer?

2324. Mr Small: Sixty per cent of forest classified as ancient woodland sites.

2325. Mr Elliott: I see that Patrick is shaking his head, but we will hear from him later.

2326. Is that because there was ancient woodland on a site but conifers have now been planted on that site?

2327. Mr Small: Yes.

2328. Mr Elliott: We can achieve a reasonable solution. I would not like to see a presumption against felling conifers and replacing them with something better. However, I would like to protect what I classify as being ancient woodland — our ancient native trees — from being felled.

2329. There is an opportunity for us, through working together, to resolve this problem relatively easily, through exercising a little common sense. It is good to have heard that discussion of the conifer issue, because I knew nothing of that.

2330. The Chairperson: Do you wish to add something, Patrick?

2331. Mr Cregg: I want only to clarify the situation. There are 10,000 hectares of ancient woodland sites across the Province. Of those, one third is planted with conifers, not 60%. Therefore, 3,000 hectares are planted with conifers. For that, the greatest culprit — if I may use the word lightly — is Forest Service, in that 2,000 of those hectares were planted by Forest Service. Therefore, we are talking about 1,000 hectares in private ownership. Let me be clear: when it comes to the removal of those conifers, we have no objection to whether they are in private or public ownership. However, we want the net area protected, because they are ancient woodland sites. We are talking about the 1,000 hectares that are in private ownership.

2332. The Chairperson: Clarification of the figures is helpful in that respect.

2333. Mr Pigott: I want to reiterate our concerns about charging for felling licences. The fees will be a barrier to managing woodlands and counterproductive to the essence of the Bill. Any added bureaucracy is bad.

2334. The Chairperson: Let us be honest: it will destroy your livelihood and that of an industry that is trying to make something of itself.

2335. Mr Pigott: Exactly.

2336. The Chairperson: The case was made very powerfully to the Committee at Castlewellan by representations from the industry.

2337. I was struck by the fact that we have here legislation that could, perversely, destroy an industry in Northern Ireland to the tune of £13 million or £14 million a year. That is just stupid. We have said it time and again, and I will say it again: if the Department proceeds with a Bill that puts a fee on felling licences, we will oppose it — end of story. We do not want to be in that position. We look forward next week to good news.

2338. Mr Pigott: Thank you, Chairman; that is a good point.

2339. Mr Pollen: One of our BASC members wants me to draw your attention to the timescales for the application of the licence and approval of it.

2340. One member was in an unusual position. He was approached by one of the saw mills and asked whether he would sell it some timber. Had that taken place under the proposed regime, he would have had to apply for a felling licence. He was approached at short notice because the quality of timber on offer from Forest Service was not what the mill was looking for. Under the proposed legislation, he would then be in the odd situation in which the regulator has the ability to frustrate the passage of a licence for a private sector operator, and, by so doing, the regulator, as the main operator, would benefit. It is one of those situations that may well happen. Clarity on the timescales and appeals process would be interesting. He was given two months’ notice for the sale. The mill did not want to fell in two months’ time but wanted to fell two months after it struck the deal. He would, therefore, have needed to know within a few days whether he was to be granted a licence.

2341. The Chairperson: That situation could be disastrous.

2342. Will the opportunity exist to apply the provision retrospectively?

2343. Mr Small: The Department would want to avoid that.

2344. It is worth making the point that the felling licence that we contemplate is a five-year licence. If such a situation arose at the very start of that five-year period, when the owner is just about to apply for his five-year licence, we would have to process the licence as quickly as possible. However, if it happened in the middle of the five-year period, it would be considered an amendment to an existing licence — perhaps an adjustment that brought forward felling from year three to year two. That is something that we could turn around very quickly. It is not our intention to frustrate the interests of private landowners.

2345. The Chairperson: What if the company were in competition with Forest Service? If a licence were delayed bureaucratically, it could be in the interests of Forest Service. I know that that would not happen, but I am trying to think of all eventualities.

2346. Mr Small: We operate on long-term contracts, which run for three or four years. Our arrangements with saw mills are agreed and planned well in advance. I cannot envisage a situation in which one sale will be of any significance to Forest Service and bring us into competition.

2347. Mr Pollen: It may well be a very rare occurrence. However, the case that I outlined involved a six-figure sum from sale of timber, and that was obviously valuable to a private landowner. He wanted to ascertain the time frame in which a licence is expected to be issued in the, admittedly, rare circumstances when it is not a five-year licence.

2348. The Chairperson: Are you looking at a licence turnaround of a couple of weeks?

2349. Mr Small: We have agreed to develop a charter that will set out how we hope to deal with planning and felling applications and the relevant timelines.

2350. The Chairperson: It makes good business sense for licences to be turned around as expeditiously as possible.

2351. Mr Small: We will aim to turn applications around as quickly as possible. We will be able to deal with amendments to existing five-year licences most quickly.

2352. Mr Elliott: The difficulty with the charter is that there is no comeback on it. Civil servants might get their knuckles rapped, but that is about the height of it. It would be much tighter if time frames were set out in legislation. I have heard from private industry about the same issue that Roger Pollen exemplified. It relates to the issue of —

2353. The Chairperson: Your constituency.

2354. Mr Elliott: No; it is not a constituency issue. It relates to the old issue of the Department’s having an unfair advantage over people in the commercial forestry business.

2355. The Chairperson: A charter may state that the Department is fairly happy for licences to be turned around in time frame x. However, having it set out in legislation that licences have to be turned around in x number of weeks would remove the concerns that the Deputy Chairperson, the industry and its representatives expressed. Will you take that suggestion on board and come back to us on it?

2356. Mr Small: We have agreed to look at developing a charter. You are now suggesting that it should be designated. The arrangements for felling licence applications and the nature of a felling plan will be subject to subordinate legislation. The process will be scrutinised further, but we will look at developing a charter and at designation.

2357. The Chairperson: There are a number of issues on which you need to come back to us, but we would like to sign off positively on the legislation line by line next week and agree the revisions and the clauses. We will produce a report within two weeks of that sign-off. That report will go to the Business Office, which will decide on a date for the Bill’s Consideration Stage. We could make good progress if you were to come back to us on some of the key points this week.

2358. I do not think that we have made any suggestions that should place additional burden on the Department or cause it concern. There are competing needs and competing industries, but I am delighted at the great deal of harmony that has been struck between the Committee and the stakeholders/witnesses. As the lead official in this legislative process, David, your name could go down in history. I encourage you to make the amendments that the Committee has suggested today.

2359. Mr Savage: David, you were concerned about the possibility of deer numbers increasing to the point that they hinder Forest Service. Could the removal of those animals from forests not be put out for tender every year? Rather than have the Department pay someone to remove deer, private firms could pay you to come in and do it.

2360. Mr Small: We have an arrangement for the management and culling of deer in place already, and we are satisfied with how that arrangement operates. Before allowing such an arrangement, we would have to consider carefully due diligence-type issues. I am not saying that it could not happen, but we would have to think very carefully about how health and safety issues would be addressed. In many cases, we deal with forests that are used for recreation, with people out walking, and so on.

2361. Mr Savage: There are now many places in Northern Ireland that specialise in game activities, so huge opportunities exist.

2362. The Chairperson: They certainly do.

2363. Mr Shannon: In support of what George said, there are estates in Northern Ireland that cater for deerstalking, thus cashing in on the potential for sporting tourism. They manage their deer herds in such a way that quality heads can be got. Consequently, they achieve better prices and increased revenue. If Forest Service were to manage its land along similar lines, whether by renting its land and leaving it for someone else to manage or by managing that land itself, it could probably realise and benefit from that potential as well. Nevertheless, marvellous potential exists. Colebrooke Park in Fermanagh is one such estate, and there are other parts of Northern Ireland in which serious deerstalking takes place. Therefore, there is potential to be realised, and it would be remiss of Forest Service not to consider the commercial advantages.

2364. The Chairperson: On that harmonious note, we shall adjourn today’s evidence session. I thank all the witnesses from the officials from the Department for taking the time to speak to us, and I look forward to next week’s meeting, which, hopefully, will be the last public evidence session on the Bill.

15 February 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Pat Doherty
Mr William Irwin
Mr George Savage
Mr Jim Shannon

Witnesses:

Mr Michael McCann
Mr Stuart Morwood
Mr John Joe O’Boyle
Mr David Small

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

2365. The Chairperson (Mr Paisley Jnr): I welcome to the meeting Christopher Shanks who is studying AS-level politics and is on work experience with the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development for the next couple of days. I hope that you have a good time, Christopher, and that your experience helps you to determine whether you wish to pursue a career in politics or one on the other side of the bench.

2366. Mr Shannon: Or to do the real work. [Laughter.]

2367. The Chairperson: I welcome to the meeting David Small, John Joe O’Boyle, Michael McCann and Stuart Morwood from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD).

2368. The Department has sent the Committee papers, which Committee members have examined. Today’s meeting follows on from the Committee’s previous meeting on the Forestry Bill. I invite you to begin by describing where the Department has proposed making some significant changes to the Bill.

2369. Mr David Small (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): Thank you, Chairman. I intend to work through the various clauses to which the Committee had suggested amendments and to elaborate a little on our written submission.

2370. The Chairperson: We will not begin with the suggestion that strategies be designated in the Bill. Instead, we will begin with the Committee’s request that a statutory code of practice be produced for compulsory acquisition of land under clause 5.

2371. Mr Small: Several issues were raised about clause 5. One issue concerned the Committee’s desire to have a clear reference in the Bill to land that the Department could develop or take an interest in, either under the voluntary acquisition arrangements in clause 2 or the compulsory arrangements in clause 5. Issues raised were rights of way, easements, and so on.

2372. The Department spoke to the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) to establish whether a reference could be included in the Bill to capture the aspects of an interest in an estate. George Gray from the OLC came back very strongly on that issue, and I will outline some of the comments that the Department received from him.

2373. The starting point is that Northern Ireland legislation is drafted in accordance with the rules set out in the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954. The Act deals in detail with matters relating to land and lays down general rules that apply to all Assembly legislation.

2374. Section 45(1)(a)(iii) of that Act states that “land" shall include “any estate in land", and that definition includes issues such as interest, easement, right of way, and so on. The OLC advised the Department that if legislation is not drafted in conformity to the Interpretation Act, the whole statute book loses its coherence. George Gray’s advice is that there is no need to provide any further reference to the different aspects of land, an estate in land or an interest in land. Those provisions are already dealt with under the 1954 Act, and, therefore, it is simply wrong to seek to repeat them again in primary legislation.

2375. The second issue on which we went to the OLC concerned an example that was quoted of a private Scottish Act, in which temporary arrangements had been included. George Gray had previously told us that temporary options are already included in clause 2 and clause 5, and he said that the example of the private Scottish Act, which was about the construction of a railway, is completely different to the Forestry Bill. He explained that the private Scottish Act was a complex set of provisions, appropriate only to a private Act, and that to take a similar approach in the Forestry Bill would simply be inappropriate.

2376. George Gray reminded us again that clause 5 as currently drafted allows the Department to compulsorily purchase land, or else to purchase by agreement a temporary or permanent interest in land. That could be a temporary or permanent interest in an easement, or a right of way, or full transfer of estate. Therefore, both issues are already covered in the clause as drafted, and there is no need to try to draw out those issues any further. As I said, he referred to the 1954 Act and the importance of conforming to its provisions.

2377. The third issue that the Committee raised concerned a statutory code of practice, which would set out how we would go about using compulsory purchase powers. We would follow a prescribed approach. Our first consideration would always be acquisition by agreement, be it of an easement, right of way or full acquisition. The next option would be some sort of temporary compulsory purchase or some sort of compulsory right of way or easement. The final stage in our consideration would to use full compulsory purchase powers, but a sequence of events would be followed before we got to that stage.

2378. That is how we would intend to proceed, and any compulsory purchase power is always one of last resort. It is not an unfettered power. We are guided by all sorts of checks and balances and protections, which are already in place. Reference was made to the first protocol in schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998 and all the protections that are already in place.

2379. The compulsory purchase powers that we have proposed have been narrowed significantly to deal just with the access issue. Nevertheless, even use of the powers in that way would be subject to all the normal procedures and protocols already in place in domestic legislation around the use of compulsory purchase powers, as well as the wider human rights-type considerations.

2380. In conclusion, so many protections are already in place that a statutory code of practice simply is not necessary.

2381. The Chairperson: OK. The Committee has considered a couple of matters, and I will say at the outset that we welcome the fact that the compulsory acquisition of land would not be an unfettered power. That is standard practice. However, that is probably as good as it gets from this side of the table.

2382. Compulsory purchase powers have never been needed in the past, and there is evidence to suggest that they may never be required in the future. In your words, David, such a power is a “last resort", but it does not say that in the Bill. Therefore, what we are agreeing to, and what is written in the Bill, is that the Department has the ability to acquire compulsorily any land that it requires. Obviously, the purpose is to facilitate access, and we welcome that proposed significant change to clause 5(1), but the issue of compulsory purchase always causes problems.

2383. Clause 2(1)(a) states that the Department may:

“acquire by agreement any land which it requires for the purposes of, or in connection with, the carrying out of any of its functions under this Act;".

2384. We would like to see the word “compulsorily" removed from clause 5(1) and the words “by agreement" inserted so that the Department may acquire land by agreement. That would make clause 5(1) consistent with clause 2(1)(a).

2385. We are trying to achieve a halfway house between our requirement and the Department’s requirement. The strength of the argument falls on our side, because you have not required the power in the past and, as you said, you may never require it in the future. Its inclusion in the Bill has caused some concern. Some stakeholders have described it as draconian. We must try to strike a balance.

2386. There are a few ways in which to deal with the issue. Clause 5(1) could come before the Committee without any proposed change, and were the Committee minded to table an amendment, the Minister could give notice of her intention oppose it at Consideration Stage. Alternatively, you could propose that clause 5(1) be withdrawn, and we retain clause 2(1)(a). Furthermore, you could propose amending clause 5(1) by replacing “compulsorily" with “by agreement", or with wording that indicates that the power will be used only as a last resort.

2387. It was also suggested that the Minister, at Consideration Stage, could make a strong statement setting out the very narrow circumstances under which the power could be used. That would provide a ministerial interpretation of the clause, which would be up for interpretation at a later stage — say, in five or 10 years’ time — when there may be a different Minister in post.

2388. Therefore, the Committee must try to reach agreement with you on a number of issues. Committee members can bear those issues in mind when they ask new questions or make their positions clear.

2389. Mr Elliott: I still have a huge concern over the compulsory acquisition of land. I appreciate your view, David, that the provision will be used only as a last resort, but that is not what it says on the tin. I will be holding fast on this point. Speaking in a personal capacity, I could live with temporary acquisition, as long as it was used as a last resort.

2390. You mentioned the Interpretation Act. Will you inform us from where you are taking your guidance and state why you feel that a provision for temporary acquisition cannot be included in the Bill?

2391. Mr Small: I can quote only the advice that we have been given. As I understand it, the Interpretation Act applies to all forms of primary legislation in Northern Ireland. It provides the interpretation of terms and deals with, for example, terms such as “estate in land" and what that means in any piece of primary legislation. Our use of “land" in clause 2 and clause 5 is defined by the interpretation of “land" in the 1954 Act. The OLC advised us that section 45(2) of the Interpretation Act states: “‘estate’, when used with reference to land, includes any legal or equitable estate or interest, easement, right, title, claim, demand, charge, lien or encumbrance in, over, to or in respect of the land."

2392. The Act defines what is meant by “land". To define “land" again in the Bill would simply be wrong. The advice to us is that if legislation is not drafted in conformity to the Interpretation Act, the whole statute book loses its coherence.

2393. Mr Elliott: There would be no conflict if temporary acquisition were used rather than permanent acquisition.

2394. Mr Small: The advice to us is that the terminology in clause 2 and clause 5 already allows us to acquire the temporary use of a piece of land or a right of way, by agreement or by using the powers under clause 5 on a temporary basis, in a way that we feel meets our needs.

2395. Mr Elliott: Clause 5 will permit the compulsory permanent acquisition of land, and that is the difference.

2396. Mr Small: We would do that only as a last resort. Our preference will always be for a temporary arrangement, should that meet our needs. It is important to say that we can foresee very few circumstances in which a temporary arrangement will meet our needs. We made the point previously that we could not clear-fell 3,000 hectares of forest in one go. We would have to go into a forest of that size every year for 20 years. A temporary arrangement that we had to renegotiate every year would not meet our longer-term needs. In more circumstances than not, it is likely that our requirement will be for some permanent transfer of the interest in the land, but, as we said before, we propose to narrow the scope of the clause to access only. Essentially, that will allow us to broaden out an access lane. We are not contemplating a large-scale compulsory purchase of hectares of land; that is not the purpose of the Bill, and we have proposed to narrow clause 5 to reflect the Committee’s concerns.

2397. The Chairperson: That is your intention, and I do not question the integrity of that intention. However, do you accept that the power, as drafted, will give you powers beyond that intention?

2398. Mr Small: The proposed amendment to clause 5(1) would enable us to use the power for access purposes. If we were to use the power for any other purpose or in a manner that went beyond our need, we would be subject immediately to judicial review and challenge. The compulsory purchase system will allow for public inquiries and appeals, so the process will be extremely tightly controlled by the existing systems and protocols.

2399. From the points that you have made, Tom, I can appreciate your sense of concern about any proposal to take land permanently from an individual. As I said, however, the power will be used sparingly. Even having the power will address many circumstances similar to those that have arisen in the past in which we found it impossible to reach agreement by negotiation, which is always our preference. We would use the compulsory purchase powers in clause 5 only in circumstances in which negotiation failed utterly, and then only in the most limited, reasonable way. If we did not, we would be immediately subject to judicial review.

2400. We have proposed to narrow the clause significantly, and we have indicated that the power will be used sparingly and will be subject to ministerial supervision. Forest Service will not be able to use the power simply as it chooses; its use will be tightly controlled.

2401. Mr Elliott: On the one hand, the power could be used as a last resort. In fairness, however, on the other hand, the power could be used widely. For example, Forest Service might have difficulty with a neighbour and ask him whether it can get access to his land. If he refused, you would have the power to acquire his land without getting into any further negotiations with him. That is a realistic possibility.

2402. Mr Small: I do not think that we would move quite as quickly as that.

2403. Mr Elliott: You would have the option of doing so, however. The power to acquire land should be temporary rather than permanent. I take your point that you might have to go in and out of a forest for 20 years, but it is up to the Department to ensure that an agreement is in place before it makes a compulsory temporary acquisition. My experience of working with Forest Service and of trying to do deals with it — on swapping land with farmers, for example — is not good. Forest Service takes a determined attitude to co-operation with some of the farmers with whom I have been involved.

2404. Mr Small: Obviously, we have to work within boundaries and parameters.

2405. Mr Elliott: My experiences have been difficult. As you said, you have to work within the remit of the legislation. That is why I am determined to get the legislation right for people who own land adjacent to forests. There is a way around the issue that is suitable to both of us, but you are not prepared to accept it. I will be holding fast.

2406. Mr Small: I am not sure what the way around it is, Tom. Do you mean that a temporary approach should be taken? If a temporary arrangement would meet our needs, I have indicated that it would be our first approach, under either clause 2 or clause 5. Where we feel that a temporary approach would suit our needs, we would take it.

2407. Mr Elliott: David, you have not provided me with any instance in which a temporary acquisition would not meet the Department’s needs, nor with a reason why Department needs a provision in the Bill to acquire land permanently. You gave an example of a scenario in which the Department has a large area of forest to which it may need to gain access every year for 20 years, but that could also be achieved through temporary acquisition yearly or every five years.

2408. Mr Small: One arrangement might be to obtain a long-term or fixed-term lease, and those are options that the Department will consider.

2409. Mr Elliott: Therefore, why does the Department require a permanent acquisition provision?

2410. The Chairperson: It provides muscle, does it not? Clause 5 gives the Department the ability to make an agreement with an individual, but if the individual does not want to make that agreement, the Department can use the powers available under the clause as muscle. I am not saying that that is wrong, but, on balance, the provision is in the Bill to provide muscle.

2411. Mr John Joe O’Boyle (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): There are some circumstances in which major upgrading may be required on an access route, such as when a bridge needs to be built across a river. Therefore, it makes sense for the Department to have a longer-term interest in the land if it is undertaking such projects at public expense.

2412. Mr Small: Indeed. Such projects could involve quite significant public investment, and there is a question as to whether the Department should return that land after one year or two years, or retain it.

2413. The Chairperson: The Department could do that under temporary arrangements. It could be a long temporary arrangement.

2414. Mr Small: Yes. The Department appreciates that.

2415. Mr Shannon: I will not go over all the matters that Tom and the Chairman have raised. However, they floated some good ideas, which could provide a halfway house.

2416. If the temporary acquisition of land were for one or five years, would either Forest Service or the landowner be legally disadvantaged? Would temporary acquisition give the Department more rights than a landowner? I am unsure as to whether that is a question for the Department or our own legal team.

2417. The Chairperson: It will be by agreement.

2418. Mr Shannon: OK. Does that imply that neither party will be disadvantaged?

2419. Mr Small: No advantage will be given. It will also depend on the terms that are written into the lease or agreement with the landowner.

2420. Mr Shannon: I wholeheartedly agree with the opinions of the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson. Temporary acquisition is a methodology that safeguards the landowner and provides the Department with an opportunity to take advantage of land that it owns or wants to access. Some cost may be involved in that, and John Joe mentioned the example of bridges needing to be constructed, which I can understand. However, at the same time, I see no reason why a five-year temporary acquisition could not be extended. That would give the Committee some security and leave it confident in what the Department is proposing, but if such a provision is not included in the Bill, I will not be supporting clause 5.

2421. Mr Irwin: As a farmer, I do not like the idea of the compulsory acquisition of land, the provision for which is contained in clause 5. I feel that the clause should have been worded differently. I do not support compulsory acquisition of land, but I understand that it may be wise to have such a provision in the Bill for instances in which a narrow lane needs widening or a drain needs piped and only a few square feet of land needs to be acquired. The clause is too broadly worded, making it difficult for the Committee to support it. However, I fully understand the Department’s position that it would be wise to have such a power in certain situations.

2422. I am unsure as to how clause 5 could be worded differently. If it is an issue of access, normally a few square feet of land will be enough. However, the Department could encounter an uncooperative landowner, and that could prove quite difficult. However, if the clause were worded slightly differently, it might be better. “Compulsory acquisition" may sound more stringent than the Department means it to sound.

2423. The Chairperson: David, I think that you will find that there is sympathy around the table for the Department to include in the legislation what it needs to include. The Committee will ensure that, by agreement or temporary acquisition of land, the Department gets what it needs. However, I would caution the Department against setting that sympathy aside in favour of the desire to have a power that it has never used in the past and that it will probably never have to use in the future.

2424. Bearing that in mind, there should be a way around this that allows the Department to achieve something without upsetting the important balance that others have spoken about.

2425. Mr W Clarke: On the same train of thought, I would like to see the temporary solution used on most occasions. However, I am pragmatic enough to know that there will be occasions on which a permanent solution is needed. It has never been needed in the past, but there are new responsibilities for the Forest Service. How does it provide renewable energy and wind farms? There may be tourism facilities, biomass facilities and a lot of different projects that may require the widening of lanes or the creation of bridges on a permanent basis. We cannot put the public’s money into a temporary agreement. That is my reading of it.

2426. We have to be realistic and the Bill has to be fit for purpose. I cannot see the Department wanting to invest a couple of hundred thousand pounds in a lane-widening exercise or a new bridge. I do not see that happening on a regular basis unless it is for the public good. There has been a narrowing of the wording around access, and that is important. It is for access only. We have to look at the bigger picture and the public good. From that point of view, you are right, but there will be limited opportunities to do that, and that should be clarified.

2427. Mr Small: That is a helpful point. Tom asked what the circumstances would be where a permanent purchase might be necessary, and Willie referred to the possibility of a tourism-type project. A temporary arrangement for a multi-million pound tourist investment would probably not be the right kind of arrangement, and something more permanent would be needed. There might be circumstances even in forestry or timber removal where we make a significant investment. Given the investment and the value-for-money issues, it is important that we retain a permanent interest so that we can use it again.

2428. The Chairman mentioned the Committee’s need for greater reassurance over how to use these powers. He mentioned the possibility of a statement from the Minister at a later stage, possibly at the next stage of the Bill. The Minister would be more than happy to give her assurances around how sparingly that power will be used and the kind of supervision that will be exercised in its use. It is important that we retain both the temporary and the permanent options, with the preference being that we use the temporary one where possible. Our advice is that, in drafting terms, the Bill already does that for us.

2429. The Chairperson: We can try to get an agreement on temporary solutions. I think that you are picking up a sense from the Committee that there is goodwill towards what the Department requires, but we think that there is another way of cracking the nut. The Department has the opportunity and the option to continue with this, and the Committee may decide to propose an amendment. I am trying to save the Committee and the Department an amendment that may mean that the Bill changes our way. We want to try to reach agreement.

2430. Mr Savage: How many instances have there been where the Department has had to get involved with vesting in the past? Considering the amount of land that the Forest Service owns, is it not a matter of taking a bit more scope and widening the whole place? That would give the Department peace of mind about its property and leave other landowners alone. I am speaking as a farmer and I know exactly what difficulties there can be from time to time. However, is that not possible?

2431. Mr Small: Yes; it is. Our first consideration is to use our forest estate to gain access, because we could not justify the public investment in acquiring a new access, either through agreement or through the use of compulsory purchase powers if we had them. When it is possible to use our land, that is always our first consideration. Our second consideration is always to try to negotiate by agreement. We have never had compulsory purchase powers, but we have been in some very difficult situations in which a lot of time and public investment has been spent on securing an access through agreement, only to find that the nature of that access has been adapted or adjusted by the landowner through the use of gates or some other mechanism. That has meant that we have lost access again, having spent a lot of public investment. I suppose that we could be criticised for that, but we did not foresee or anticipate those circumstances. Situations such as that suggest that we need some form of additional provision, even though we would hope never to have to use it, because it would be so difficult to do so in practice.

2432. Mr Savage: The amount of land that Forest Service owns means that it does not have to depend on anyone.

2433. Mr Small: Unfortunately, that does not deal with every circumstance; that is the problem.

2434. Mr Doherty: How many hectares of landlocked land does Forest Service own?

2435. Mr O’Boyle: We looked at that situation recently. There are something like 100 areas of land, some large and some not that large, that require upgraded access to get to a road frontage. A significant amount of the forest estate sits behind other people’s land. We may have only acquired a right of way through the farmer’s land at the front when we made the acquisition in the first place, and that may have sufficed for us over the years in planting and managing the land until the harvesting stage, but there may be a need to be able to upgrade those facilities in order to continue the forest’s productive cycle.

2436. Mr Doherty: Having harvested the trees, is it your general practice to replant in the same area?

2437. Mr O’Boyle: Yes. Trees are replanted in the same area, unless there is some other reason under the management plan for a certain section to be managed more for biodiversity than timber. There may be some actions in the management plan that allow us to take small pieces of land for other uses. Primarily, however, the land is replanted with trees of some sort.

2438. Mr Doherty: You have already answered this question, but to reiterate, are you saying that you have never had to use compulsory purchase powers?

2439. Mr O’Boyle: We have never actually had compulsory purchase powers. We have no history of using it.

2440. Mr Doherty: You have never had it to use?

2441. Mr O’Boyle: No. That power has never been available to us.

2442. Mr Elliott: I would not mind if farmers had the power through legislation to compulsorily purchase land that bordered on Forest Service land. They do not have that facility.

2443. The Chairperson: You have made temporary agreements over the years.

2444. Mr O’Boyle: Yes. We have entered into agreements over small forest blocks which, according to our management plans, we would not have to return to very often. We may make an agreement with a farmer for a temporary upgrade of our access. We have even erected temporary bridges in some areas to get across streams and then removed them when we were finished. When it comes to bigger areas of land, we have obligations under sustainable forestry management criteria to harvest in a broken up and fragmented way. We do not have the opportunities to meet our sustainable forestry targets by clearing a forest out at one time and stepping back out of the forest again. We need to maintain an ongoing presence; our duty is to break the forest down into as many manageable coops as we can, and to harvest those with gaps of three to seven years between each felling.

2445. The Chairperson: There is nothing then that a temporary arrangement would not facilitate.

2446. Mr Small: Willie Clarke talked about some of the tourism-type projects that we might want to try to facilitate in the future; I do not think that temporary arrangements would suit those circumstances.

2447. The Chairperson: A 99-year lease, as you would have with the National Trust, would be more than ample. It would allow for the position that acquiring land is done not by muscle but by agreement.

2448. Mr Shannon: The National Trust has an arrangement and a 99-year lease with Bill Montgomery of Rosemount estate, who owns a number of the islands on Strangford Lough. The National Trust also has an arrangement and a 99-year lease with Mount Stewart, and I presume that everyone here is well aware of the attractions of Mount Stewart and its estate. That does not stop the National Trust from developing the potential of tourism on those sites, and it has been very successful in doing that. That keeps the ownership with the landowner and enables the lessee to develop the site as they want. Those are two factual examples.

2449. Mr Chairman, you are making a very clear point. Why not have a 99-year lease? That would enable the Department to do what it wants, increase the potential for tourism, wind farms and other projects, and, at the same time, be a good way of going forward.

2450. Mr Doherty: I noted from your explanatory notes that GB and the South have compulsory powers. Did the Department have any dialogue with them on their experience and on how often, or not, they have had to use those powers?

2451. Mr Small: We have had some discussions. We found that, in most circumstances, those powers are not used very often. The power is not designed to be used regularly. It is a last resort when all other efforts have failed. The very presence of a power such as that means that one is, more often than not, more successful in finding negotiation by agreement because, ultimately, if all else fails, that provision would be there. That is not a threat; the power is not designed that way. However, its purpose is to help fulfil some public aspirations, objectives and goals. The emphasis will always be on acquiring land by agreement where that is possible. It ought not to be used very often.

2452. Mr W Clarke: Mr Small made the point that I was going to make. A 99-year lease or a 50-year lease or whatever is probably what everyone would want. However, that would be in circumstances where everybody is in agreement. If, for example, somebody was being dogmatic and would not move on improving a laneway, and if everybody else was in agreement, that extra stick would be needed to at least encourage them to come to some sort of agreement. However, in many circumstances, I do not think that the power will be used.

2453. Mr Small: The important point is that, as drafted, the current provisions allow us to look at a range of temporary options, such as a 99-year lease. It may be that, in most circumstances, that kind of option will meet our needs. However, where it does not, this power will give us further discretion. I probably cannot give you an example of when that will happen or what the circumstances will be. However, it will give us that additional discretion.

2454. The Chairperson: If that discretion could be articulated in the Bill, which it cannot, that would be ideal.

2455. Mr Small: That would clarify it for members.

2456. The Chairperson: That is the problem. Although everyone around the table believes in your sincerity and the Department’s sincerity, there may be others who do not. In legislative form, that is a problem.

2457. Mr Doherty: We cannot put sincerity into law.

2458. Mr Small: You said that assurances from the Minister might help.

2459. The Chairperson: The trouble is that they are time-bounded. Other Ministers have recently made similar comments that have been challenged by up-and-coming attorneys general and basically set to the side. That is the other problem. A statement that is made with good intentions is open to the interpretation of some Johnny-come-lately and can be dismissed.

2460. Mr Small: Such a statement would be supported by all of the other protections in the Human Rights Act 1998 and in domestic legislation.

2461. Mr Irwin: I am looking at your proposed wording:

“for the purposes of, or in connection with providing or improving access to any land".

2462. “Providing" is different to “improving". “Providing" could mean looking at new access. If it was written in that this was to improve existing access, I am not sure that anyone could disagree with that. I, for one, believe that in certain circumstances it could be useful to have the power. As the Chairman said, it is difficult to nail that down. I could live with it if it was for the widening of existing accesses.

2463. The Chairperson: You have a fair idea of the Committee’s position. We sympathise with what you are trying to do, but we want to avoid the big stick approach. We will take some advice on other examples of temporary treatment, and we will probably have to come back to this to sign it off one way or another. You will have to decide whether to run with it in the knowledge that an amendment is likely. I cannot prejudge the House’s view on that amendment. It is not an ideal situation. I would far rather get agreement and pass the Bill with full support.

2464. Mr Small: We want to proceed like that too, Chairman.

2465. The Chairperson: I take you to clause 9.

2466. Mr Small: We indicated that we have some reservations about the Committee’s proposal last week to drop the clause. It is there to protect woodland and, in doing so, support our general duty to promote sustainable forestry.

2467. Last week, we discussed whether there is a current problem that we are trying to deal with, and we acknowledged that a serious problem does not currently exist. However, reference has recently been made to a 2002 survey that was taken forward by the Department of the Environment (DOE) in association with the British Deer Society, which indicated that, at that time, there was clear evidence of increasing deer populations. That work has not been refreshed.

2468. Our concern is that, as forest cover begins to expand, that trend will continue. Through this clause, we were trying to secure the ability to begin to deal with that problem as it emerges, and to do so in the least intrusive way and, if possible, a minimalistic way. Our concern is that not creating such a power now and having to renegotiate it at a later date would mean that, when evidence of a problem emerges, we would have no ability to deal with it in a minimalistic way. We would have to wait until the power was agreed before we could use it.

2469. We were trying to put in place a discretionary power that would enable us to deal with a problem that we are pretty sure will develop. Evidence in the South and in GB suggests that this is a developing and increasing problem, and we are trying to put in place some discretionary provision that will enable us to deal with it when it happens. I have made the point that it is not an unfettered power. It will be circumscribed by significant protections that are already in place.

2470. The Chairperson: In light of the representations that have been made, will you agree to an enabling power or to the dropping of the clause?

2471. Mr Small: That suggestion was made last week. Our preference is to take the provision, if it satisfies the Committee and enables us to reach agreement.

2472. The Chairperson: We know that that is your preference. The issue is that you will get the enabling power if you bring it forward as that, but you will have to come back with subordinate legislation to take the power if the problem that you have identified arises. If you do that, we can get an agreement, and the clause in its current form would be dropped.

2473. Mr Small: The clause, as previously drafted, included the ability to go onto land and deal with the control of vermin and of rabbits, hares and deer. One of the concerns that has arisen is to do with the fact that that provision will allow us to control deer on adjacent land. We want to retain the provision to deal with vermin, hares and rabbits, because, in almost every circumstance, that will be a problem.

2474. The Chairperson: Will you bring it to us in that way?

2475. Mr Small: If we were to draft it that way, it would satisfy our concern on that point.

2476. The Chairperson: Are members content with what they have heard on that?

Members indicated assent

2477. The Chairperson: Woodland inventory was an outstanding issue from last week.

2478. Mr Small: Last week, we proposed that, rather than have an open-ended arrangement, we would review the inventory at least every 10 years after carrying out the initial inventory work. There was a suggestion that it be reviewed every year, but we do not think that that is appropriate or necessary. We considered whether a compromise of every five years or every seven years would work. We feel that, in practice, a 10-year review is appropriate. As I said last week, that would allow for five such reviews as we move towards our 50-year target of doubling forest cover.

2479. Within those 10-year periods, we will be reviewing every year the increase in woodland that we have secured through our woodland grant scheme. We have good data on the Department’s own forest cover. We suspect that the changes each year will come primarily through the woodland grant scheme, and we will have good data on that anyway. Beyond that, any increase or loss in woodland will likely be quite minor and will be captured in each 10-year review. Therefore, if any gaps were to develop, we would capture them every 10 years.

2480. The Chairperson: I want to establish that those reviews will be of something that is tangible. I want a commitment form the Department that you will establish a baseline that starts from year one of this Act to carry out a significant piece of work that draws down on the data that is already there and which establishes a baseline from then onwards. If you were prepared to do that, to update it regularly and review it as a substantial piece of work every 10 years, we would be up for that. We would like the work on the baseline to be done so that we have something to work from.

2481. Mr Small: That is our intention.

2482. The Chairperson: Will you give us that?

2483. Mr Small: Yes.

2484. Mr Elliott: I do not have much to add. I support that. There is no real need to conduct a review every year; that would be a waste of time and effort. It is difficult to encompass all of the woodland in an inventory, but as long as the inventory is set to a reasonable standard at the start, I am fairly confident that it will be kept up to date. Will an inventory of ancient woodland be carried out at the same time, or is there a different set of circumstances for that?

2485. Mr Stuart Morwood (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): That will be conducted at the same time, and the data that is available on the ancient woodland inventory will feed in substantially to the production of any baseline.

2486. Mr Elliott: You want to protect the ancient woodland, and I wonder whether regular reviews of it should be conducted. I am not so sure about the conifers, but broadly we agree that it is important that the ancient woodland be protected. Can anything be added to provide for such reviews to be carried out on a shorter timescale to ensure that there is no damage or disease?

2487. The Chairperson: We want to add an additional clause to protect ancient woodland of high biodiversity value.

2488. Mr Small: The ancient woodland inventory was, I believe, sponsored by DOE, with the assistance of the Woodland Trust. I am not sure how often that is to be reviewed and updated. If it is to be updated and reviewed, we will want to capture any fresh data that come through that process.

2489. The Chairperson: I want to see a clear definition of “ancient woodland" so that people know why a given piece of woodland is being protected.

2490. Mr Small: We need a mechanism to find a way to offer targeted protection for ancient and long-established woodland, or at least for woodland with the highest biodiversity value.

2491. The Chairperson: Will you bring that back to the Committee quite quickly?

2492. Mr Small: Yes.

2493. The Chairperson: I would like to wrap this up next week. The other issue is felling licences and fees. I believe that the Department will see the light on that.

2494. Mr Small: We said last week, and possibly the previous week, that we are aware of the Committee’s concerns and the issues that it raised about fees for felling licences, and that we were carefully reviewing the appropriateness of fees and whether those fees can be waived. We have been seeking advice from colleagues, but I am still not able to report today on whether that is possible.

2495. The issues that we are considering relate to the balance between public benefit from felling licences as against private, individual gain. The Department feels that the main benefit from that regulatory system will be the public interest that is served by ensuring sustainable forest management and forest cover, and the benefits that flow from increased forestry. On that basis, there is a case to be made that it would be inappropriate to impose a fee on the individual woodland owner. However, we are still not able to report finally our position on that. Our hope is that there may be some mechanism whereby we can waive fees, and I hope to report to the Committee on that in the next few days.

2496. The Chairperson: That has been an issue, and it has the ability to scupper the good work and good intentions in the Bill and send out all the wrong signals to those who make a living from forestry. No one around this table, including your side, wants to do that. I realise that you have to wait for the Finance Department to get back to you, but hopefully the Committee will encourage them to get back to you as expeditiously as possible.

2497. Mr Savage: I am just —

2498. The Chairperson: We are on fees, George.

2499. Mr Savage: Pardon?

2500. The Chairperson: On fees.

2501. Mr Savage: Sorry?

2502. The Chairperson: On fees.

2503. Mr Savage: No, actually, I am on clause 9. Perhaps you have jumped it.

2504. The Chairperson: We have it well sorted.

2505. Mr Savage: Oh, that is all right. I was afraid that you were going to close the meeting there.

2506. The Chairperson: Don’t worry about it. We have closed it down. We are happy.

2507. The other big issue is the general duty of the Department. The Committee suggested designating certain Government strategies. Is there a way around that? Can you suggest anything that would help?

2508. Mr Small: We still have concerns about designating strategies. However, we appreciate the Committee’s desire to find some link between the general duty that the Department will take under the Bill and how it will be delivered. The core issue is how we create that link.

2509. The Chairperson: Have you any suggestions?

2510. Mr Small: We were hoping to propose an implementation plan that would indicate to the Committee and to stakeholders how we plan to take forward the duty in the Bill, using its new provisions. That is a proposal that we would like to put to you.

2511. The Chairperson: An implementation plan?

2512. Mr Small: Yes.

2513. The Chairperson: That would be like a kind of delivery guide.

2514. Mr Small: Delivery plan.

2515. The Chairperson: Delivery plan. OK.

2516. Mr Small: It would indicate how we intend to deliver against the new duties that we will take.

2517. Mr Elliott: Such woolly language, Chairperson. I am surprised at you.

2518. The Chairperson: Tom, please. It is called the art of compromise.

2519. Mr Small: You cannot win.

2520. Mr Savage: That was a piece of the general duty of the Department. The piece that I raised last week was about the leisure side of things — pony-trekking and the equine industry.

2521. I would have loved to have seen the equine industry mentioned in the Bill. People who use land for equine pursuits should be subject to a tight code of conduct. There is a big demand for pony-trekking, yet riders cannot go on the roads, so they need somewhere to go. Equine pursuits are an important part of the leisure industry, and I would like to see them included in the Bill. I can trust David to use his jargon to include it.

2522. The Chairperson: That could be written into the delivery plan or an implementation plan.

2523. Mr Small: It is the kind of thing that could be captured in a delivery plan.

2524. The Chairperson: I think that that covers all the clauses, unless there is something that you want to draw to our attention, David.

2525. Mr Small: The only other outstanding issue was that of the advisory body, which came up again at last Monday’s round table meeting. We remain unconvinced that the establishment of an advisory body would add any new benefits or advantages to the current arrangements. I appreciate that those arrangements rely on our working with stakeholders and calling groups of stakeholders together when we have a particular consultation or piece of work to undertake. That is how we intend to do business in future. Last year, we had a good experience with a group of stakeholders, including councils, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) and Disability Action, who came together and worked with us as we developed our proposals for a recreation strategy. They made some very helpful suggestions. That process worked well, and that is the focus that we would like to take forward, rather than a more general approach.

2526. The Chairperson: How do you propose to take that forward? Under what aegis would that happen?

2527. Mr Small: It would happen under the aegis of a clear commitment to a stakeholder approach when we undertake new areas of policy or new areas of work. That is something, again, that could be referenced in a delivery plan, but we intend to have a strong focus on stakeholder engagement as we do business. That more focused approach —

2528. The Chairperson: There is so much good will and expertise out there that the Department should bring under its wing and use to its advantage.

2529. Mr Small: I agree, but our preference is to do that in a focused way. There are groups of stakeholders that, for example, can make a real contribution to the development of a recreation strategy. Other woodland stakeholders, however, do not have the same level of interest. Our focus should be on those stakeholders that have a real interest in a particular piece of work and that can assist us in our work. I am not sure that a more general, broad-ranging advisory panel would deliver what we need.

2530. The Chairperson: If you are going to suggest that that course of action be included in a delivery plan, we need urgently to see all that written up. I would like to sign off on all the outstanding issues next Monday afternoon, one way or the other. We will go through the Bill line by line so that you can produce the final proposed draft.

2531. To achieve that, we need all those issues to be resolved and we need clarity on all the points and definitions.

2532. Mr W Clarke: I want a commitment from the Department, through the delivery plan or some other means, to meet with stakeholders at least once a year, when all work programmes can be discussed. The stakeholders would appreciate such a commitment that, at least once a year, the Department will set out its plans and strategies and outline its progress. That would be useful. There is no need for an advisory body, but there should be a mechanism that will allow you to engage with stakeholders annually. You might not have a strategy in place for another two or three years, so an annual meeting is not a big ask.

2533. Mr Small: Again, that sort of commitment is something that could be dealt with in a delivery plan. We already meet regularly with our stakeholders.

2534. The Chairperson: We do not want to limit you to meeting stakeholders once a year.

2535. Mr O’Boyle: We adopt a cyclical approach to developing our forest plans across our forest estate. As part of that approach, we have enshrined processes that require us to consult with stakeholders at a geographical and an activity-based level when we propose specific plans for those areas and when we develop strategies such as the broader forest recreation strategy. Therefore, we are already obliged to consult on how implementation is progressing at a local level.

2536. Mr Small: That would involve groups such as the NITB, local councils, the Countryside Access and Activities Network (CAAN), the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and environmental groups. We will follow that type of consultation process every time we undertake a forest plan review.

2537. Mr O’Boyle: One of our sustainable management obligations — I know that “sustainable management" is a broad term — that the independent audits that are carried out every year focus on is the extent to which we engage with our stakeholders, as well as the effectiveness of that engagement. Whether we maintain a certificate of sustainable forest management will hinge on that demonstration of stakeholder consultation.

2538. The Chairperson: That brings us to the end of our meeting. Thank you for coming and giving of your time and expertise.

22 February 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Thomas Burns
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Pat Doherty
Mr William Irwin
Dr William McCrea
Mr George Savage
Mr Jim Shannon

Witnesses:

Mr Michael McCann
Mr Stuart Morwood
Mr John Joe O’Boyle
Mr David Small

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

2539. The Chairperson (Mr Paisley Jnr): I welcome David Small, who is the chief executive of Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD); John Joe O’Boyle, who is Forest Service’s director of forestry; Michael McCann, from DARD’s policy and legislation branch; and Stuart Morwood, who is Forest Service’s director of woodland development and strategies. I suggest that we go through the Forestry Bill one clause at a time, and if we want to ask you a question or if you want to impart any information to us, we will deal with each matter as it arises.

Clause 1 (General duty of the Department)

2540. The Chairperson: Clause 1 has been discussed extensively to take account of the fact that the Bill must be forward-looking and provide opportunities that did not exist previously. We were concerned about the establishment of delivery plans, which, although not in the Bill, the Department stated, and the Minister will reiterate at Consideration Stage, its commitment to publish. Access to the delivery plans in advance would help the Committee to ensure that there are no surprises and allow us to properly interpret clauses. The Department’s commitment to that level of co-operation would help us to reach an affirmative view.

2541. For example, the equine industry is not mentioned in the legislation, but would it be a fair interpretation to say that the Bill will provide opportunities for that industry? In addition, forests could be made available to people with other sporting and recreational interests, such as mountain biking or motorbike scrambling. I am reluctant to list all the interests that could be involved because, inevitably, I will omit some incredibly important pursuit that should be accommodated. We want to ensure that the Bill is flexible and that the Department will not be draconian in preventing people’s access to and use of forestry land. Such provisions will not be in the Bill, so perhaps you could include something in the delivery plan to reassure the Committee that those pursuits will be embraced.

2542. Mr David Small (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): We avoided including in the Bill every form of recreation that we will be able to facilitate through the new legislative framework. However, you are right to say that the framework will give us scope to address and accommodate all sorts of recreational, sporting and tourism activities. That, I suppose, is what lay behind the decision to widen the Department’s general duty in clause 1. The delivery plan could refer to some of those specific areas, but it is also relevant to say that our business planning process happens every year, so, each year, the Committee will have an opportunity to witness the new areas that we are beginning to address. Our recreation strategy does refer to those various types of recreational and sporting activities, and it commits us, through a three-year implementation plan, to exploring sporting, outdoor learning, leisure and recreational opportunities. That strategy was brought before the Committee, and, each year, we will commit to delivering subsequent strategies’ implementation plans. The Bill definitely gives us the necessary scope and powers to deliver on those commitments, and our business planning process and the delivery plan can help to capture some of that.

2543. The Chairperson: Our issue is with where the Department considers it appropriate to do those pursuits. I specifically asked that the Committee have early sight of the delivery plan because we want to know exactly what we will be voting for and that as liberal an interpretation as possible has been applied.

2544. Mr Small: I think that we can do that, because, as I said, we have already made a series of commitments in our recreation strategy. We can mirror some of those commitments in the delivery plan. Obviously, we will not be able to indicate precisely which initiatives we will take forward each year, because we need to decide what opportunities are available at a given time and what partners are available to work with us. I think that we will be able to say something positive in the delivery plan.

2545. Mr Shannon: I wish to develop the Chairperson’s point. Membership of the Ulster Rural Riders Association is at its highest and most active in north Down and Ards, part of which is in my constituency. Private enterprise has helped riding at Rosemount near Greyabbey become very successful. In a way, you confirm that in clause 1. However, in my constituency, only a couple of forests are suitable for horse riding. Will zoning be used there? Can the land be used for horse riding but not for other sports? Are the forests to be used only for walking? How will the process work?

2546. People from the Ulster Rural Riders Association have contacted me. Killynether Wood may not be the most suitable location in which to develop a rural riding track, but, if the organisation wanted to use that site, or Ballysallagh Forest at Craigantlet, which is the other forest in the north Down and Ards area, for that purpose, would you view that as an opportunity for the equine industry? The Ulster Rural Riders Association has more than 46,000 registered members, the value of the sport is £121 million, and its revenue is £7·7 million a year.

2547. The Chairperson: You have obviously produced those figures off the top of your head.

2548. Mr Shannon: Yes; absolutely. My knowledge of horses is limited. All that I know is that King Billy rode one at the Battle of the Boyne, but I represent many people who have a real interest in horse riding. They are very keen to ensure that the opportunity is there for them to ride horses in forests, and I want to ensure that they have that opportunity. Will the legislation provide that opportunity? It would not be satisfactory if those people were told to do their rural riding in Cookstown, Limavady or Fermanagh — no disrespect to those places.

2549. The Chairperson: The horses would be exhausted by the time that they got there.

2550. Mr Shannon: Opportunities should be available where there is the greatest number of people. How can you assure me, a representative of those people, that that will happen?

2551. Mr Small: There are opportunities. We already facilitate significant pony-trekking and horse-riding opportunities in our forests. We determine where it might be appropriate for those activities to take place through our forest planning process, which is cyclical. We consider each area in an area-wide context. We determine what the existing provision is in the forest block and consider what more may be possible. We also consult with local groups on our forest plans. Out of that process, we hope to identify opportunities with potential partners. One example of our doing that is at Castle Ward, where we work in partnership with the National Trust to develop a multi-purpose trail network, which will include mountain biking and pony-trekking, as well as walking.

2552. It is through that combination of our forest planning process and our work with partners that opportunities will materialise. There are real opportunities in the forest estate, and I do not think that we would ever contemplate having provision for pony-trekking only in the north of the Province. Our expectation is that it will be well spread out.

2553. Mr Shannon: You mentioned the relationship that you have with potential partners. If, for example, an organisation were to suggest that it wished to develop with the Department a rural riding pathway or a bridle path, would you be open to suggestions and negotiations?

2554. Mr Small: Yes; I think so. We may not be able to do so in every circumstance, because it may not always be suitable, but we are willing to consider possibilities. John Joe has been leading work with the British Horse Society Ireland, which has considered our recreational provision for pony-trekking and horse riding across Northern Ireland. We are trying to find a way in which to deliver that at a strategic level.

2555. Mr John Joe O’Boyle (Department of Agriculture and Rural Department): Our aim is to establish a strategy to provide the necessary facilities and strategically to consider specific areas of forest that could meet local demand.

2556. Mr Shannon: It is about determining the demand for such facilities and deciding where the people want them. That is a key issue.

2557. Mr O’Boyle: We recognise that where that demand is can be part of a strategic demand to which quite a lot of people in a particular area want access. We realise that, in some cases, there is a more local, geographic demand, and that we also need to provide for local need that is not connected to a more strategic demand. For example, the demand from people who want to ride horses now and again in a local wood that is not too far away from them is different from that of people who want to participate in 10 or 12 events a year in Northern Ireland. We want to try to make provision for people who want some access to local woodlands as well as for those who want access to a more strategic need for pony-trekking.

2558. Dr W McCrea: I am concerned that the number of vehicles that are on the roads these days makes it difficult and dangerous for people who go horse riding. We need to look at the alternatives.

2559. I seek clarification on clause 3(2)(d), which states:

“such other recreational, conservational or educational facilities as the Department considers appropriate."

2560. Do you think that horse riding and carriage driving should be considered recreational activities? Is that a proper interpretation?

2561. Mr Small: Yes. We already make good provision for pony-trekking.

2562. Dr William McCrea: Therefore, those activities would come under that definition?

2563. The Chairperson: We want absolute clarity on that.

2564. Mr Small: Clause 3(2)(c) also refers to bridle paths.

2565. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, put and agreed to.

2566. Clause 1, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, agreed to.

2567. Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Provision of facilities on forestry land)

2568. Mr Savage: Before we agree to clause 3, I seek some clarification from Mr Small about viewing points and bridle paths in clause 3(2)(c). Will the horse fraternity be included under that paragraph?

2569. The Chairperson: To be fair, David has just drawn our attention to clause 3(2)(c), which states that facilities may include:

“viewing points, bridlepaths, nature trails, arboreta, wildlife enclosures, interpretative centres, conservation areas and scenic drives;".

2570. For the record, because the meeting is being recorded for that purpose, when Mr Small was asked by Dr McCrea whether the clause included the equestrian fraternity, he said yes.

2571. Dr W McCrea: He did say yes.

2572. The Chairperson: There is clarity on that paragraph. I am not going to open it up for discussion again.

2573. Mr Savage: I am happy enough.

2574. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

2575. Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 (Use or development of forestry land)

2576. The Chairperson: Do members have any points to put to the departmental officials on clause 4? The Committee Clerk will summarise the clause for members’ benefit.

2577. The Committee Clerk: Clause 4 combines with clause 7 to allow for bodies corporate, and so, to be included for the purpose of those functions. The Department’s proposal is to delete subsections (2) and (3) will be deleted from the Bill, and clause 7 will refer back to clause 4. Members agreed that at earlier meetings.

2578. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, put and agreed to.

2579. Clause 4, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Compulsory acquisition of land)

2580. The Chairperson: The clause was discussed in closed session before the departmental officials entered the meeting. The Committee Clerk has recommended acceptance of the clause based on the legal advice received. Do Members have any specific questions or comments that they wish to put to the Department?

2581. Mr Elliott: I accept that the Department has moved quite significantly on the clause, but I still have concerns. I assume that that is of no major surprise. As we have sought legal advice, is it possible to insert a subsection that states that the compulsory acquisition of land would occur only after all other avenues had been exhausted?

2582. Mr Small: We considered that as well, Tom. However, I am not sure that we put that to the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) on the basis that we could anticipate with a fair degree of certainty how it might respond. We are pretty sure that the OLC’s response would be that clause 5 powers are the powers of last resort. The Department would not even contemplate using clause 5 powers unless the clause 2 provisions had been exhausted. They would require us to negotiate with a landowner to seek to develop a lease arrangement or a right of way.

2583. We could not go straight to clause 5, because we would fail on the Wednesbury reasonableness test under local law, and we would fail the human rights test of reasonableness and proportionality. Clause 5 powers could not be used unless a proper, reasonable process of seeking to acquire land by agreement had been followed. We felt that the OLC would not even contemplate the inclusion of such a subsection, because —

2584. The Chairperson: You are stressing to us that those powers are a last resort.

2585. Mr Small: Yes; absolutely.

2586. The Chairperson: I draw members’ attention to clause 2(1), which we have already agreed to, which states:

“The Department may—

(a) acquire by agreement any land which it requires".

2587. The operative words for us are “by agreement".

2588. Mr Elliott: Although David says that the powers would be used only as a last resort, there is nothing in the Bill to indicate that. Although the Department may feel that legislation or the courts may be against it if it used clause 5 powers not as a last resort, there is nothing in the Bill to indicate that that would be the case. The legislation still allows for the compulsory, permanent acquisition of land, and although I am not happy with that, I may be able to live with it if something was included in the clause to state that the powers would be used only a last resort. I keep coming back to the point that if the wording is not in the Bill, it is not in it.

2589. Mr Small: My feeling is that if we go to it with that suggestion, the OLC will say that is taken as read that clause 5 powers cannot be used unless all other reasonable steps have been taken. We can put your concern to the OLC, Tom, if you so require, because we have not yet formally done so.

2590. The Chairperson: It is fair that we raise the issue with the OLC in order to get a definitive position.

2591. Mr Michael McCann (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): We have not yet put it to the OLC, but we will do so. The OLC said that we are obliged to explore the alternative before we use that power, and the Departmental Solicitor’s Office (DSO) said that we can engage in compulsory acquisition only if we first take steps that constitute the lowest level of interference.

2592. The Chairperson: It is only fair that we ask you to take the point to the OLC to get advice. Our legal advice is clear. It states that what we have been able to negotiate with you over the past month brings us closer to the position that we want. However, that line is not included in the Bill. The trajectory is good, but if you put that point to the OLC, that might be sufficient to alleviate all concerns. What I am particularly struck by is that the proposed power is about right to access now, whereas previously it was a much more open issue. If we can have clarity on the point that the Deputy Chairperson raised, it would help members considerably.

2593. Mr Small: We will check that point.

2594. Mr Elliott: If the OLC were to say that it is taken as read that it is a last resort, it would be useful if it could give us some explanation of why it is taken as read. If there is some other piece of legislation that —

2595. Mr Small: I think that it is in domestic common law. The Wednesbury reasonableness requirement requires the Department to act reasonably. Moreover, human rights legislation, which requires the Department to have exhausted all other reasonable approaches first, would apply.

2596. The Chairperson: That means that we will have put the Question on clause 5 tomorrow. I am just giving you notice of that.

2597. Mr Shannon: Last Monday, we discussed the idea of the lease process. In other words, before the Department can compulsorily acquire land, there is the possibility of the Department’s seeking a long-term or short-term lease. I know that it does not say that in the clause, but can we have some indication that the Department is agreeable to that term and methodology of coming to an agreement with the landowner, should there be any problem?

2598. Mr Small: I think that the Department would be agreeable to that. A further amendment to clause 5 has been suggested to indicate that that could be for a limited period. The OLC has suggested the inclusion of a new subsection (1A), which states:

“The power of acquiring land compulsorily under subsection (1) includes power to acquire, by the creation of a new right, an easement or other right over land."

2599. What we are being told is that the compulsory power provided for in clause 5 allows the Department to do any one of those combinations. The Committee’s concern until now has been that the Bill does not state that. However, the OLC’s view is that it does not need to, because, again, it is taken as read.

2600. The Chairperson: It is by agreement. In other words, there must be negotiation.

2601. Mr Shannon: I appreciate that.

2602. Dr W McCrea: I understand the first part of what you say, whereby clause 2(1) states that any land acquired must be done by agreement, but we are not talking about something that is done by agreement. The compulsory purchase of land is not by agreement. It takes us into a completely different field.

2603. I stress what Tom said. I would like clarification that that does mean that compulsory purchase should be used as a last resort. I appreciate that the powers will be narrowed, and that they are in the Bill to improve access to land, and therefore the capacity to use those powers is narrowed. However, it is vital that the clause be made clear. If it cannot be included in the Bill that the power will be used only as a last resort, we want to know why not. If what you are saying is correct, we need a very clear statement from you of what exactly the clause means. That way, the Department can be reminded of what it is saying: that it is a power of last resort. A major power has been handed to the Department, although it has limited scope. It is important to realise that, although its usage will generally be fine, it may not be fine for people whose land is going to be taken from them.

2604. Mr Small: We appreciate those concerns.

2605. The Chairperson: We need to have clarity on that point by tomorrow. I know that the OLC normally works in months, but if it could work in hours, that would be handy for us. I am sure the OLC is not listening to this. I stress that, originally, the proposed power provided to the Department was of an absolute right to acquire, and it will be reduced to being a limited power. We have done some good work on clause 5, and commendations are appropriate all round, both for Committee members and departmental officials, for getting the provision limited to powers to improve access. If we could get that definition clear, it would go a long way to satisfying the Committee. You have your work cut out for you with the OLC. Therefore, we will postpone putting the Question on clause 5 until tomorrow.

2606. Clause 5 referred for further consideration.

Clause 6 (Inquiries, information, etc.)

2607. The Chairperson: An amendment has been proposed to clause 6 to include the keeping of a woodland inventory, which will be reviewed at 10-year intervals, following a baseline assessment in the first year.

2608. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, put and agreed to.

2609. Clause 6, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Incidental powers)

2610. The Chairperson: An amendment has been proposed to clause 7 to allow similar procedures to be introduced under clause 4.

2611. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, put and agreed to.

2612. Clause 7, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, agreed to.

Clause 8 (Control of animals in forests)

2613. The Chairperson: An amendment has been proposed to clause 8 to exclude animals listed in schedule 5 to the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 and to remove the potential for night shooting. The Committee has done some good work on the clause.

2614. Mr Savage: Are badgers protected in the clause? That is an important issue.

2615. The Chairperson: Only deer and hare.

2616. Do you want to be able to shoot badgers at night? [Laughter.]

2617. Mr Savage: I think that we should be able to.

2618. It is important that we have something in the clause that —

2619. The Chairperson: We are not allowed to shoot them at any time.

2620. Mr Savage: I know; I would not do that.

2621. The Chairperson: I will not be facetious. The issue that George raised is covered by the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill, which is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.

2622. Mr Savage: I ask because it could be important if there were a big outbreak of bovine TB or brucellosis, and a set of badgers needed to be rooted out. I hope that that situation does not arise.

2623. Dr W McCrea: Have we dealt with the correspondence from the British Deer Society?

2624. The Committee Clerk: That will be covered when the Committee moves on to clause 9.

2625. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, put and agreed to.

2626. Clause 8, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Control of animals on land adjacent to forest)

2627. The Chairperson: Clause 9 is a substantive clause. The Committee asked Forest Service to reserve the clause and proposed the option of enabling the clause by subordinate legislation, or the appropriate legal trigger, when deer populations pose a greater threat than they do at present. Thankfully, Forest Service agreed to an amendment, and clause 9 will be retained in the Bill in dormant form.

2628. That means that an amendment has been proposed to clause 38 that provides for clause 9, or any of its provisions, to be activated if they are ever required, but only if a draft Order is laid before the Assembly and approved by a resolution. Therefore, the Department would have to come back to the Assembly to trigger the provisions in the clause.

2629. A further amendment has been proposed to the clause to remove the liability for charging adjacent landowners for kills, but the ability to charge other forest owners has been retained.

2630. Dr McCrea asked about the correspondence that we have received on deer from the British Deer Society. Members have that correspondence in their blue folders. We plan to have clause 9 remain dormant so that the Department has to come back to the Assembly to activate it if the provisions in it are required. Therefore, we have probably addressed the society’s concerns.

2631. Mr Elliott: Is there no need to refer to clause 38 in clause 9?

2632. Mr Small: Clause 38 is not mentioned in clause 9 because of drafting protocol. Clause 38 clearly indicates the dormant nature of clause 9.

2633. Mr Elliott: I know that, but if one reads clause 9 on its own, no reference is made to clause 38.

2634. Mr Small: You will probably find a lot of cross-references, even on regulations that are to be made. There is no indication of how they will be made until one gets to the clause 34, which talks about making regulations. That clause refers back to earlier clauses. If we were to do what you ask, we would need to include cross-references in quite a few clauses.

2635. Mr Shannon: The British Deer Society wrote to us to ask who would cull deer. I mentioned in Committee previously that there is tourism potential and sporting potential here, which could be used as a method of control. I do not think that that is mentioned anywhere in the clause, although I may have missed it.

2636. I have never shot a deer in my life, but it is one of my ambitions before I pass away. I am aware of the recreational value, the tourism potential and the money that can be generated from shooting deer. Does the clause mention recreational deerstalkers? If it does not, perhaps it should.

2637. The Chairperson: The clause will lie dormant, but if, at some time in future, the population increases and there are galloping wildebeests and wild deer running across the plains of Ulster that require to be shot and put down at will, we will be able to address the issue then. The Department has conceded considerable ground and recognises that it is not a problem at present, but, when it becomes a problem, we will have to address it.

2638. Mr Shannon: There could be some potential at that time.

2639. The Chairperson: An Order will need to be laid in the House that will be subject to affirmative resolution. Therefore, it is not a minor thing.

2640. Mr Shannon: I am perfectly satisfied with that.

2641. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, put and agreed to.

2642. Clause 9, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, agreed to.

Clause 10 (Removal or destruction of vegetation on adjoining land)

2643. The Chairperson: The Department has proposed an amendment to clause 10, which will now contain a new paragraph to allow scope and flexibility, and measures other than removal or destruction of vegetation. The OLC has also attached a caveat to the clause for those who are committed to agrienvironment schemes and whose grant may be compromised by any clause 10 actions. The OLC was of the view that it would be unreasonable for the Department to seek to claw back grant on the grounds that a landowner had done something required by the Department under statutory powers and that nothing express will be required to that effect. The Department can also confirm that the principle of force majeure applies to those schemes. That will also offer protection in those circumstances. Is that a fair summary?

2644. Mr M McCann: Yes, it is. We asked the OLC to write a caveat into the Bill, but it said that there was no need because of the force majeure principle and because of the fact that it would be unreasonable for the Department to claw back any money from compromised agrienvironment schemes by virtue of another wing of the Department’s serving a notice on the landowner. That is more or less as you summed up the case, Chairperson.

2645. The Chairperson: We came across that as a result of the early scrutiny. Again, it indicates the good work that the Committee has done in identifying issues along with the Department.

2646. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, put and agreed to.

2647. Clause 10, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, agreed to.

2648. Mr Elliott: Has the definition of “uncultivated land" been taken from the Department?

2649. Mr Small: It has been taken from the dictionary. We discussed it at last week’s meeting. We asked the OLC whether it would be possible to define “uncultivated land", and the advice was that it was unnecessary. It is the dictionary definition, which is “land that has not been cultivated". It was as simple as that. There are other statutory definitions, but they confuse matters more. The OLC’s strong view was to use the dictionary definition, and that it was not necessary to give a further definition.

2650. Mr Elliott: I can see huge problems in that area in the future.

2651. The Chairperson: I hope that you are wrong, because we have just agreed to the clause.

Clause 11 (Protection for persons acting under section 8, 9 or 10)

2652. The Chairperson: Clause 11 is not as live as the others. An amendment has been amended to provide protection for officers who are undertaking official duties as detailed in clauses 8 and 10 in particular.

2653. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, put and agreed to.

2654. Clause 11, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, agreed to.

2655. Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 (Requirement of licence for felling)

2656. Mr Elliott: We were shown a draft of a felling licence.

2657. Mr Small: It was a felling plan.

2658. Mr Elliott: A felling plan, yes. I think it was a management plan. There is no legislative basis for that, and no legislative basis would be needed to change it. I appreciate that we were shown a simple plan that would be acceptable to everyone, but I am concerned about changes to that if they are required.

2659. Mr M McCann: The content of the management plans will be prescribed by subordinate legislation. The Committee will have an input into the development of those plans.

2660. Mr Elliott: So the plan requires subordinate legislation?

2661. Mr M McCann: That is correct.

2662. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

2663. Clause 14 agreed to.

2664. Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 (Operation and conditions of felling licence)

2665. The Chairperson: An amendment has been proposed to include a reference to the maintenance of ancient woodlands, although the Bill provides no definition of “ancient woodland". The Department will, hopefully, be able to apprise members that it intends to use the definition that is provided by the UK forestry standard and other documentation. Is that right?

2666. Mr Small: That is right. OLC took the view that “ancient woodland" is a well-understood term in forestry circles and that it is unnecessary to apply a definition in the Bill.

2667. The Chairperson: At least now we can turn to a recognised authority on that.

2668. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, put and agreed to.

2669. Clause 17, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, agreed to.

2670. Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 (Fees in connection with felling licences)

2671. The Chairperson: The Committee has taken a very strong line on clause 20. We do not want to see fees anywhere near it. Given that we are nearing the eleventh hour, do you have anything to say about fees?

2672. Mr Small: We have taken account of the Committee’s views and have recently secured the Department of Finance and Personnel’s agreement to waive fees for felling licences.

2673. Now, the Committee had also expressed concern about the retention of the clause. Our position is that it is Executive policy that Departments should seek to recover costs where appropriate. We accept the Committee’s concerns and do not feel that fees are appropriate at this stage. We reached that determination largely on the basis that the main benefit of the felling licensing system is a wider public benefit rather than any private individual gain.

2674. However, if in five or 10 years’ time the situation changes slightly, we will need the discretion to review it, perhaps at some future date. That means that some sort of clause like this needs to be retained. We know that the Committee is concerned about having that kind of clause in the Bill, and we propose that the clause remain in the Bill, but that any fees regulations that subsequently come forward should have to be approved by affirmative rather than negative resolution procedure.

2675. The Chairperson;

2676. Is that similar to what we have agreed for clause 9?

2677. Mr Small: Yes. It is so that the fees can be set only with the full consent of the Assembly.

2678. The Chairperson: That goes an awfully long way to meet the Committee requirements. Organisations such as ConFor, which try to make a living out of forestry, will be delighted. I welcome the fact that you are waiving the fees, and that, if the Department wants to bring them in at a later date, you will first get the Assembly’s authority. I do not think that we can ask for much more, except a cherry on top.

2679. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

2680. Clause 20 agreed to.

2681. Clauses 21 to 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 (Regulations)

2682. The Chairperson: This clause refers back to clause 20, and makes it subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

2683. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, put and agreed to.

2684. Clause 34, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, agreed to.

2685. Clauses 35 to 37 agreed to.

Clause 38(Commencement)

2686. The Chairperson: This clause refers to clause 9, and makes it subject to affirmative resolution. The Committee sought that protection.

2687. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, put and agreed to.

2688. Clause 38, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, agreed to.

2689. Clause 39 agreed to.

2690. Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

2691. Long title agreed to.

2692. The Chairperson: That concludes the clause-by-clause scrutiny, with the exception of clause 5. If we can get answers on that by tomorrow, we will be able to complete the process; if we can get over that bump in the road, we will have done a fairly good piece of work collectively on this Bill. I appreciate that you and your colleagues have been in listening mode for this Bill. We have kicked some of these issues about, but we have got over the line with them. The Committee appreciates the hard work that has gone into it.

2693. Mr Savage: It is important, when all is said and done, that there is a living forest. That is in everyone’s interest.

2694. Mr Shannon: It is refreshing to have worked with officials who are responsive to the Committee. We all appreciate the Department’s co-operation.

2695. The Chairperson: You will be getting an OBE if you are not careful, David.

2696. Mr Small: I just want to raise one issue before we finish.

2697. The Chairperson: Maybe you already have one.

2698. Mr Small: We talked about clause 9. The Department has accepted that it should remain dormant in the Bill with an enabling provision for some later date. We put a proposal to the Committee on Friday paper to add another clause to the Bill. That clause would be similar to clause 9 but, rather than having a compulsory nature, its provisions would only be used with the consent of the landowner. Our reasoning is that, although we were content to allow clause 9 to remain dormant at this time, on the basis of the Committee’s comments, we feel that there would be circumstances in the future in which it would be helpful if the Department could go onto adjacent land with the landowner’s agreement. [Interruption.]

2699. Mr Shannon: Vote?

2700. The Chairperson: That is possibly a vote.

2701. Unless we see it, we cannot do anything with it. Can you bring it to us tomorrow?

2702. Mr Small: We presented it on Friday. Perhaps the Committee Clerk and I can have a chat about it.

2703. The Chairperson: We will look at it tomorrow.

23 February 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Pat Doherty
Mr William Irwin
Dr William McCrea
Mr George Savage
Mr Jim Shannon

Witnesses:

Mr Michael McCann
Mr John Joe O’Boyle
Mr David Small

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

2704. The Chairperson (Mr Paisley Jnr): I welcome to the meeting David Small, John Joe O’Boyle and Michael McCann. Mr Morwood is not with you today. Have we worn him out?

2705. Mr David Small (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): Yes.

2706. Mr Elliott: I again declare an interest as a landowner.

2707. The Chairperson: OK. Following legal advice, it was considered that although there was scope for clause-by-clause amendments, we will go straight to clause 5, which deals with compulsory acquisition.

Clause 5 (Compulsory acquisition of land)

2708. The Chairperson: We had a detailed discussion about clause 5 yesterday. Is there anything that you want to put to us before we hear members’ views?

2709. Mr Small: I reaffirm that the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) and the Departmental Solicitor’s Office (DSO) came back to us yesterday and advised that it would not be appropriate to insert a clause indicating that the clause 5 powers would only be used as a last resort. I think that members have a copy of that advice.

2710. OLC and DSO advise very strongly against doing that for a whole range of reasons, one of which is that that does not exist, to their knowledge, anywhere else. They made the point that it is important that all compulsory purchase powers be exercised and expressed in the same way in statute to retain uniformity. There is a very strong view that whenever compulsory purchase powers are being considered, that will always be after all other options have been exhausted. That is described by our legal people in DSO as being a matter of course. Against that background, the strong advice is that it is inappropriate to include that kind of clause.

2711. The Chairperson: Could you publish on the website your administrative guidance showing the processes that have to be undertaken if there is to be compulsory acquisition? That would mean that people would see that the Department has to go through clause 2 and show all of the negotiations. It is only as a very last resort that the Department can to move to clause 5, and what that entails in terms of Wednesbury reasonableness and having to go over all of the proper hurdles.

2712. Mr Small: We could possibly do that.

2713. The Chairperson: It would give the public certainty when they look at that.

2714. Mr Small: It might look a bit odd on the website. We would need to establish just where it would sit in the website without sticking out like a sore thumb. One alternative is that the Minister, in her Consideration Stage speech, could refer explicitly to the issue and the steps that we will take before we even consider clause 5 provisions. I assume that that would be recorded and available in the Hansard report. The guidance might look a bit odd on the website.

2715. The Chairperson: I certainly have no difficulty with the Minister making a detailed statement on the issues and giving the interpretation. However, there is an issue because the guidance could be published. I am sure that a suitable place on the website could be found, or there could be a reference to it in documentation so that people know where they can get it and see what the administrative guidance is to the process of compulsory acquisition.

2716. Mr Small: I hesitate because when we discussed the idea of a statutory code setting out the various procedural steps in statute, we were advised very strongly against that by our legal advisers.

2717. The Chairperson: That is why I am talking about your administrative guidance as opposed to a statutory code.

2718. Mr Small: The legal advice was that there was absolutely no reason why a Department should not have internal procedure that dictates clearly how it will deal with an issue. However, the more public that procedure is made, the more expectation it raises and the more substance it then carries in respect of potential legal challenges. If that were done, it would raise the whole prospect of a judicial review or legal challenge. I am not suggesting that is a reason for not doing it, but it puts the matter in a different arena.

2719. The Chairperson: At this point, some transparency about the process and the guidance that you would follow is all that is being sought. That is a very small ask.

2720. Mr Small: My only hesitation is around the legal advice. I have it in the back of my mind that the more public one makes the issue, the more difficulties are created.

2721. Mr Elliott: However, the more public it is made, the less suspicious the public are.

2722. Mr Small: I appreciate that, yes.

2723. Mr Elliott: That is where we are coming from, and I agree with the Chairperson. I am automatically suspicious to hear that the Department has reservations about making the whole issue public on its website.

2724. Mr Small: That is for legal reasons only, Tom. There are no other reasons.

2725. Mr Elliott: Nobody is going to challenge you unless you take land off them first.

2726. Mr Small: The DSO made that point. When and if a Department seeks to use its compulsory purchase powers, it moves into a strongly contested legal arena in which protection is afforded by the Human Rights Act 1998 and by domestic law. There is every chance of a challenge, and the more information that is public the stronger that challenge will be. In practice, I have no difficulty with the idea of the information being on the website, other than my concern about that legal advice.

2727. Mr John Joe O’Boyle (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): It comes down to the level of detail that might be put on the website, because the DSO also advised us that every case was a bit different and, for example, different administrative procedures are brought to bear in different circumstances. Thus, it is difficult to have a best-fit administrative procedure that covers all circumstances. Part of the difficulty is that the Department would have to explore the approach to be taken in each and every set of circumstances. Legal difficulties arise from it not being easy to have a catch-all administrative process.

2728. Mr Small: The Department was also advised that its internal procedure would have to change from time to time. Therefore, an internal procedure now might differ from an internal procedure that predated the Human Rights Act 1998. Human rights legislation means that our present internal procedure is very different.

2729. Mr Elliott: I do not accept any of that argument. All that the Department has to do is update its advice on the website for the public’s information. I must say that I have had difficulty with this clause the whole way through, and you are making me extremely suspicious. I am having enough difficulty coming round to accepting the Committee Clerk’s advice on the matter without you making it more difficult.

2730. Mr Small: I am not trying to make it difficult, Tom. Before I give a commitment in Hansard, I am thinking through the issues in my head and reflecting on some of the legal advice. Having done so, I think that, on balance, the Department would be content to put some information on the website that will set out the very obvious steps that must be taken before we even consider using clause 5, including all the clause 2 opportunities, the negotiations with the landowner and our attempt to acquire the land by agreement. That is the kind of information that will be set out, all of which is consistent with our responsibilities and obligations under the 1998 Act and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). I see no difficulty with that, because we must meet and pursue those obligations and procedures anyway. Therefore, Chairman, I am content to give a commitment on that.

2731. Mr Shannon: There you are, Tom. You dragged that out of him.

2732. Mr Elliott: Was the advice from the OLC and the DSO given orally or in writing?

2733. Mr Small: It was in writing. We reflected it in a note to the Committee Clerk.

2734. Mr Elliott: Had we received that before today, Committee Clerk?

2735. The Committee Clerk: No, but it is in today’s Committee papers.

2736. Dr W McCrea: Welcome, gentlemen. To be quite honest, you are fumbling around for an excuse here and you are doing a very bad job.

2737. Mr Small: We have agreed to do it.

2738. Dr W McCrea: You are certainly not convincing. You tell us that it would look odd, but it would not be the first odd thing to appear on the Department’s website. To claim that it might be odd or a wee bit strange is no reason to keep it off. What is being asked is the weakest possible manner of moving forward on the issue; it is the weakest request possible. Either it is the last resort or it is not.

2739. The Chairperson: I do not think that it was offered.

2740. Dr W McCrea: Either it is the last resort or it is not. I am becoming increasingly suspicious that the Department is fumbling around. I do not doubt your legal advice but listen, folks: transparency is a wonderful thing.

2741. Mr Small: I agree.

2742. Dr W McCrea: If you look at it carefully, transparency will do the Department good, not harm.

2743. Mr Small: I agree with that, and I have agreed that we will publish the information on the website.

2744. Mr Shannon: You are browbeaten.

2745. Dr W McCrea: No, he is not.

2746. Mr Molloy: I have missed some of this, but the attitude seems to be the same as it was when I was last here. My concern is that, rather than it being the last option, this is, too often, the first option that the Department takes. There seems to be a reluctance to say that the legislation exists and a view that it would be dangerous for people to know about it. That smacks of the Department trying to cod people about its long-term intentions. The public should know what options are available to them. It is ridiculous to try to hide information to prevent someone from taking a case.

2747. The other side of the story is how flexible the Department would be in a reverse situation, where someone else wanted communication or co-operation from Forest Service regarding adjacent land that he or she owns. Perhaps the Department would not be that flexible either. The public need to be aware of their rights, and their rights should not be denied. If human rights legislation is a problem for the Department, it is time that the Department examined that.

2748. Mr Small: Human rights legislation is not a problem for us at all. I have agreed that we will publish the information on the website. I have to be careful to consider all the legal implications of giving that commitment, but I am satisfied —

2749. The Chairperson: It shows that there has not been anything cooked up between us, David. There is no reason for suspicion.

2750. Mr Small: Absolutely. I fully support the benefits of transparency; there is no question about that. We must meet the full obligations of the 1998 Act and the European Convention on Human Rights, and I have no difficulty with that.

2751. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, put and agreed to.

2752. Clause 5, subject to the Department’s proposed amendment, agreed to.

2753. The Chairperson: The matter is closed at this point, but there will be an opportunity for us to debate all the points that have been raised on the Floor of the House and for that to be recorded in the Hansard report. That will also provide the Minister with a platform to reiterate that this approach will be used only as a last resort, as you indicated that she was keen to do.

New Clause (Control (with permission of occupier) of animals on land adjacent to a forest)

2754. The Chairperson: At the meeting yesterday, the Department indicated that clause 8 will be followed by the new clause. The new clause reflects a totally consensual approach that requests the occupier of adjoining land to take effective steps to prevent damage to adjoining woodland. Failing that, the Department may request permission to control the animals, but it has no power to enter without that permission. The Committee has been asked to note that the new clause contains no power to impose any costs on an owner of adjoining land even if, by agreement, the Department controls animals on his or her land. Is that a fair summary of your proposal, David?

2755. Mr Small: Yes. It is based completely on permission from a landowner.

2756. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

2757. New clause agreed to.

2758. The Chairperson: That concludes the Committee Stage; is that right?

2759. The Committee Clerk: No; that concludes the Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill.

2760. The Chairperson: Yes; that concludes the Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill. I was wondering there, because I did not think we had got that far.

2761. I want to reiterate my appreciation for the work that you have done and, indeed, for the way in which we have tried to get this Bill over the line as effectively as possible. The Hard work has resulted in some beneficial changes.

2762. Mr Small: I thank the Committee for its input and contribution. It has been a positive process, and it has been hard work. Hopefully, it will result in a Forestry Bill that we are all happy and comfortable with and that sets a statutory framework for the work that we will take forward in future.

1 March 2010

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr (Chairperson)
Mr Tom Elliott (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Willie Clarke
Mr Pat Doherty
Mr Jim Shannon

2763. The Chairperson (Mr Paisley Jnr): Committee members have in front of them a copy of the draft Committee report on the Forestry Bill. As members will know, we have to go through the report line by line, sentence by sentence and comma by comma to ensure that everything is in order.

2764. I propose to start with the table of contents and work through the draft report’s 34 pages.

2765. Are members content with the table of contents and with what has been written about the Committee’s powers and membership?

2766. Members indicated assent.

2767. The Chairperson: We now move on to the executive summary, which I will go through paragraph by paragraph.

2768. Paragraph 1 deals with the purpose of the Bill. Are members content?

2769. Members indicated assent.

2770. The Chairperson: Paragraphs 2 and 3 deal with the principles of the Bill.

2771. Paragraph 2. Are members content?

2772. Members indicated assent.

2773. The Chairperson: Paragraph 3 is really a factual paragraph. Are members content?

2774. Members indicated assent.

2775. The Chairperson: Paragraphs 4 and 5 deal with the key issues.

2776. Paragraph 4. Are members content?

2777. Members indicated assent.

2778. The Chairperson: Paragraph 5. Are members content?

2779. Members indicated assent.

2780. The Chairperson: Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 deal with the recreational, social, economic and environmental aspects of forests.

2781. Paragraph 6. Are members content?

2782. Members indicated assent.

2783. The Chairperson: Paragraph 7. Are members content?

2784. Members indicated assent.

2785. The Chairperson: Paragraph 8 concerns the delivery plan. Are members content?

2786. Members indicated assent.

2787. The Chairperson: Paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 deal with compulsory acquisition

2788. Mr Shannon: I am sorry, but I have not had the chance to go through the draft report yet.

2789. The Chairperson: No one has. That is why we are going through it line by line now.

2790. Mr Shannon: I have been asked to mention clause 9. Have we come to that dormant clause yet?

2791. The Chairperson: We will come to that in a moment. We are on compulsory acquisition, which is clause 5.

2792. Paragraph 9. Are members content?

2793. Members indicated assent.

2794. The Chairperson: Paragraph 10. Are members content?

2795. Members indicated assent.

2796. The Chairperson: Paragraph 11. Are members content?

2797. Mr Elliott: Paragraph 11 states:

“The Committee accepted that such powers were necessary".

2798. I am not sure that we accepted that principle. I think that the Department told us that such powers were necessary, but I am not sure that we agreed.

2799. The Chairperson: Do you have a suggestion?

2800. Mr W Clarke: We agreed in principle that, in certain circumstances and as a final option, such a power was necessary.

2801. The Chairperson: Perhaps it should read, “The Committee heard arguments as to why the powers were necessary from the Department’s perspective."

2802. Mr W Clarke: Yes.

2803. Mr Elliott: That would be fine.

2804. The Chairperson: It puts the weight of the argument on the Department. We will return to that paragraph when we consider the final draft.

2805. Are members content with paragraph 11, subject to a change to the wording?

2806. Members indicated assent.

2807. The Chairperson: Paragraph 12. Are members content?

2808. Members indicated assent.

2809. The Chairperson: Paragraphs 13 and 14 deal with the woodland inventory.

2810. Paragraph 13. Are members content?

2811. Members indicated assent.

2812. The Chairperson: Paragraph 14. Are members content?

2813. Members indicated assent.

2814. The Chairperson: Paragraphs 15 to 22 deal with powers to enter private land to control animals or vegetation. Clause 9 deals with control of animals on land adjacent to forest. Mr Shannon expressed an interest in those issues.

2815. Mr Shannon: I have been asked to ask a question. I just want to put this on record, if nothing else. I know that you and other members have been asked about it, too, Chairperson. Are we convinced, in the light of our concerns, that any activation of the dormant clause will not become an issue? That has been brought to my attention because some Members of the House of Lords have indicated that, sometimes, civil servants do not always replicate what the Committee says. I appreciate that officials are not present to respond to what I have said.

2816. The Chairperson: We are dealing with our report, so let us agree paragraph 15, after which we should read paragraph 16 closely.

2817. Paragraph 15. Are members content?

2818. Members indicated assent.

2819. The Chairperson: Let us read paragraph 16 carefully, because it explains our position clearly.

2820. Mr Elliott: Remind me, Chairperson, whether “empowered only by affirmative resolution" means that the dormant clause must be activated in the Assembly.

2821. The Chairperson: It must be discussed in Committee as well.

2822. The Committee Clerk: It would do at policy stage. The second last sentence of paragraph 16 states:

“The Committee requested that the Department take powers to introduce this power by subordinate resolution".

2823. That should read “affirmative resolution", not “subordinate resolution". We will amend that sentence. That was my mistake; we could either have used “subordinate legislation" or “affirmative resolution". I went for a combination of the two.

2824. The Chairperson: We will change “subordinate" to “affirmative". That paragraph makes our position clear, Jim.

2825. Mr Shannon: I believe that it does. I have tried to convey that, but I was asked about it over the weekend and I just wanted to see it in black and white.

2826. The Chairperson: Representations were made to me on similar lines. People asked why the dormant clause was still in the Bill. It is there, but it is dormant.

2827. Mr Shannon: One of the key factors that helps me to explain it better is that any new power will be used only:

“when the evidence base was available to indicate that there was a problem."

2828. Any such power cannot be used willy-nilly but must be invoked by the Committee and the Assembly. Would the regulations be discussed in Committee before being debated in the Assembly?

2829. The Committee Clerk: The process should be that it would come to us at subordinate legislation stage 1. The policy of the new subordinate legislation would come to us first. It would then be laid in the Business Office.

2830. The Minister must move that piece of legislation, at which stage it can be debated. A decision is then up to the House.

2831. The Chairperson: The Committee deals with pieces of subordinate legislation (SL) every week, and we usually go through them quite quickly. If this were to come up as an SL1 years from now, it may provoke a debate. I saw a similar situation arise in the Assembly’s first mandate when SLs on seed potato prices and fees regularly provoked debate.

2832. The Committee Clerk: As the Chairperson says, there are SL1s on which Committee staff will automatically make presentations. Having learnt from experience, they would particularly include SL1s that invoke new fees or that the Committee has debated, such as the issue of landing oysters. This is a subject that Committee staff will flag so that if regulations come before the Committee, a presentation will be delivered.

2833. Mr Shannon: I am happy with that. The interest in the issue is such that it should be flagged in advance of a Committee meeting so that we are all made aware of it. The evidence base also keeps us right.

2834. The Chairperson: It is significant that the Committee argued for, and achieved, the requirement of affirmative resolution. Many issues and interests must be balanced, and it is a sensible way forward.

2835. Are members content with paragraph 16, subject to a change to the wording?

2836. Members indicated assent.

2837. The Chairperson: Paragraph 17. Are members content?

2838. Members indicated assent.

2839. The Chairperson: Paragraph 18. Are members content?

2840. Members indicated assent.

2841. The Chairperson: Paragraph 19. Are members content?

2842. Members indicated assent.

2843. The Chairperson: Paragraph 20. Are members content?

2844. Members indicated assent.

2845. The Chairperson: Paragraph 21. Are members content?

2846. Members indicated assent.

2847. The Chairperson: Paragraph 22. Are members content?

2848. Members indicated assent.

2849. The Chairperson: Paragraphs 23 and 24 deal with fees for felling licences.

2850. Paragraph 23. Are members content?

2851. Members indicated assent.

2852. The Chairperson: The power to introduce fees will also require affirmative resolution. There will be that option. Are members content with paragraph 24?

2853. Members indicated assent.

2854. The Chairperson: We now move on to the draft report’s recommendations. We will deal with paragraph 25 and the first bullet point. Are members content?

2855. Members indicated assent.

2856. The Chairperson: The second bullet point. Are members content?

2857. Members indicated assent.

2858. The Chairperson: I see, Mr Shannon, that the third bullet point contains another reference to working with stakeholders. The Committee argued strongly for that when it met at Castlewellan Forest Park.

2859. Are members content?

2860. Mr Shannon: May I ask a wee question on that?

2861. The Chairperson: As long as it is wee.

2862. Mr Shannon: The creation of a post of independent regulator has been suggested throughout the process. That debate is not part of today’s business. At what stage does the Committee feel that it has dealt with all the issues and concerns that were raised?

2863. Many people felt that having an independent regulator would be a way in which to administer those issues to the satisfaction of those who had concerns. Some people are worried about the Forest Service’s having powers above and beyond what it should have — not today, but in future. Some members of the Committee would be of that opinion.

2864. The Chairperson: The Department is the regulating authority. If that is to change, it is unlikely that the Department will propose that change. The Bill will control and set the parameters of where that power rests. The Bill has been extremely helpful on some of those points, especially on our insistence that Forest Service talk to stakeholders. The question is whether there should be a requirement to restrict the powers. That could come by way of a private Member’s Bill.

2865. Mr Elliott: One point on the Forest Service’s powers is that we allowed the provision on the body corporate, but we curtailed other areas of the Bill, particularly over land use and acquisition. We have tried to strike a balance.

2866. The Committee Clerk: To pick up on the Deputy Chairperson’s point, the body corporate is to facilitate the establishing of relationships with community groups, and so on. There was some discussion about establishing an advisory panel comprising stakeholders. However, the Department argued against that, and members agreed that the body corporate was sufficient, and that there should be regular meetings with stakeholders. The Department has given a commitment to do that in respect of those sectoral interests such as recreation and biodiversity.

2867. The Chairperson: The third bullet point. Are members content?

2868. Members indicated assent.

2869. The Chairperson: The fourth bullet point. Are members content?

2870. Members indicated assent.

2871. The Chairperson: The fifth bullet point and its four associated bullet points. Are members content?

2872. Members indicated assent.

2873. The Chairperson: The sixth bullet point. Are members content?

2874. Members indicated assent.

2875. The Chairperson: We will take our time to read the seventh, eighth and ninth bullet points. Are members content?

2876. Members indicated assent.

2877. The Chairperson: We now move on to the introduction. This is all factual stuff. Are members content with paragraph 26?

2878. Members indicated assent.

2879. The Chairperson: Paragraph 27. Are members content?

2880. Members indicated assent.

2881. The Chairperson: Paragraph 28. Are members content? At least pretend that you are reading it, Willie.

2882. Mr W Clarke: I am reading it. [Laughter.]

2883. Mr Shannon: You must be a quick reader.

2884. Mr Doherty: He is a speed-reader.

2885. The Chairperson: Again, are members content?

2886. Members indicated assent.

2887. The Chairperson: Paragraph 29. Are members content?

2888. Members indicated assent.

2889. The Chairperson: We now move on to the summary of the Forestry Bill.

2890. These points were presented by the Department in a submission to the Committee, which we regurgitated and put back into the draft report. It is a factual memorandum, much like the explanatory and financial memorandum that accompanies the Bill. This will take us from paragraph 30 to paragraph 70 inclusive. It is a memorandum of understanding.

2891. Mr Shannon: I suppose that you have read all those paragraphs, Willie?

2892. Mr W Clarke: Aye, I have.

2893. The Chairperson: We have read the paragraphs at length over the past weeks. Are members content?

2894. Mr Elliott: Will it be presented as a memorandum of understanding, not as the work of the Committee?

2895. The Chairperson: It states that it is a:

“Summary of the draft Forestry Bill as presented to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Committee Stage."

2896. Mr W Clarke: Must the Committee agree that?

2897. The Chairperson: The Committee must agree that that be included in its report. Are members content with paragraphs 30 to 70?

2898. Members indicated assent.

2899. The Chairperson: The Committee will now consider the section of the report that deals with the summary of consideration and agreed amendments. We will first consider clause 1, “General duty of the Department".

2900. Paragraph 71. Are members content?

2901. Members indicated assent.

2902. The Chairperson: Paragraph 72. Are members content? I need to hear it.

2903. Members indicated assent.

2904. The Chairperson: Paragraph 73. Are members content?

2905. Members indicated assent.

2906. The Chairperson: Paragraph 74.

2907. Mr Shannon: You are usually telling me to keep quiet, Chairman, but now you are encouraging me to say more.

2908. The Chairperson: Paragraph 74, Jim. Are members content?

2909. Members indicated assent.

2910. The Chairperson: We now move on to clause 5, “Compulsory acquisition of land".

2911. Paragraph 75. Are members content?

2912. Members indicated assent.

2913. The Chairperson: Paragraph 76. Are members content?

2914. Members indicated assent.

2915. The Chairperson: Paragraph 77. Are members content?

2916. Members indicated assent.

2917. The Chairperson: Paragraph 78. Are members content?

2918. Members indicated assent.

2919. The Chairperson: Paragraph 79. Are members content?

2920. Members indicated assent.

2921. The Chairperson: Paragraph 80. Are members content?

2922. Members indicated assent.

2923. The Chairperson: We now move on to clause 6, “Inquiries, information, etc.".

2924. Paragraph 81. Are members content?

2925. Members indicated assent

2926. The Chairperson: Paragraph 82. Are members content?

2927. Members indicated assent.

2928. The Chairperson: Paragraph 83. Are members content?

2929. Members indicated assent.

2930. The Chairperson: Paragraph 84. Are members content?

2931. Members indicated assent.

2932. The Chairperson: Paragraph 85 deals with consideration and agreed amendments for clause 8, “Control of animals in forests". It contains a request from the Committee for the Department to exempt the Irish hare from the list of wild animals.

2933. Paragraph 85. Are members content?

2934. Members indicated assent.

2935. The Chairperson: We now move on to clause 9, “Control of animals on land adjacent to forest".

2936. Paragraph 86. Are members content?

2937. Members indicated assent.

2938. The Chairperson: In paragraph 87, the Committee will again need to change “subordinate resolution" to “affirmative resolution".

2939. Paragraph 87. Are members content, subject to a change to the wording?

2940. Members indicated assent.

2941. The Chairperson: Paragraph 88. Are members content?

2942. Members indicated assent.

2943. The Chairperson: Paragraphs 89 and 90 deal with the Committee’s request to insert a new clause to deal with the control, with the permission of the occupier, of animals on land adjacent to forest.

2944. Paragraph 89. Are members content?

2945. Members indicated assent.

2946. The Chairperson: Paragraph 90. Are members content?

2947. Members indicated assent.

2948. The Chairperson: We now move on to clause 10, “Removal or destruction of vegetation on adjoining land".

2949. Paragraph 91. Are members content?

2950. Members indicated assent.

2951. The Chairperson: Paragraph 92. Are members content?

2952. Members indicated assent.

2953. The Chairperson: We now move on to clause 15, “Application for felling licence".

2954. Paragraph 93. Are members content?

2955. Members indicated assent.

2956. The Chairperson: We now move on to clause 17, “Operation and conditions of felling licence".

2957. Paragraph 94. Are members content?

2958. Mr Elliott: I notice that the paragraph mentions felling management plans.

2959. The Chairperson: Yes. It mentions felling management plans for ancient woodland.

2960. Mr Elliott: Is it reasonable for us to insert an extra sentence that says that we have seen the draft management plan?

2961. The Chairperson: I do not see why not.

2962. The Committee Clerk: That may be included. The draft management is actually included in the appendices.

2963. Mr Elliott: Is it?

2964. The Committee Clerk: Yes.

2965. The Chairperson: Perhaps we should we insert a sentence that draws attention to that fact.

2966. Mr Elliott: That might be useful, because that was an important part of our decision-making.

2967. The Chairperson: It was indeed.

2968. The Committee Clerk: We will insert a sentence that says that the draft management plan is contained in the relevant appendix.

2969. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 94, subject to the extra wording?

2970. Members indicated assent.

2971. The Chairperson: Paragraph 95. Are members content?

2972. Members indicated assent.

2973. The Chairperson: We now move on to clause 20, “Felling in connection with felling licences".

2974. Paragraph 96 is a factual statement. Are members content?

2975. Members indicated assent.

2976. The Chairperson: Paragraph 97 deals with our success. Did anyone ever doubt that the Department was going to waive the proposal to introduce felling licences? I did not.

2977. Are members content with paragraph 97?

2978. Members indicated assent.

2979. The Chairperson: We now move on to clause 30, “Public right of access to, and byelaws for, forestry land".

2980. Paragraph 98. That is for all your rural riders, Jim. Are members content?

2981. Members indicated assent.

2982. The Chairperson: Paragraph 99. Are members content?

2983. Members indicated assent.

2984. The Chairperson: Paragraph 100. Why is there a pound sign before the word “recreational" in paragraph 100? Was artistic licence being used?

2985. Mr Shannon: It means that if an individual has money, he can become involved in recreational use, and if he does not have any money, he cannot become involved.

2986. The Committee Clerk: That is a typo. I will amend it.

2987. The Chairperson: Paragraph 100. Are members content?

2988. Members indicated assent.

2989. The Chairperson: Paragraphs 101 to 122 relate to the clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill. The paragraphs are lifted from the minutes of last week’s meeting, which we actually agreed earlier today, but we will go through them anyway.

2990. The Chairperson: Paragraph 101. Are members content?

2991. Members indicated assent.

2992. The Chairperson: Paragraph 102. Are members content?

2993. Members indicated assent.

2994. The Chairperson: Paragraph 103. Are members content?

2995. Members indicated assent.

2996. The Chairperson: Paragraph 104. Are members content?

2997. Members indicated assent.

2998. The Chairperson: Paragraph 105. Are members content?

2999. Members indicated assent.

3000. The Chairperson: Paragraph 106. Are members content?

3001. Members indicated assent.

3002. The Chairperson: Paragraph 107. Are members content?

3003. Members indicated assent.

3004. The Chairperson: Paragraph 108. Are members content?

3005. Members indicated assent.

3006. The Chairperson: Paragraph 109. Are members content?

3007. Members indicated assent.

3008. The Chairperson: Paragraph 110. Are members content?

3009. Members indicated assent.

3010. The Chairperson: Paragraph 111. Are members content?

3011. Members indicated assent.

3012. The Chairperson: Paragraph 112. Are members content?

3013. Members indicated assent.

3014. The Chairperson: Paragraph 113. Are members content?

3015. Members indicated assent.

3016. The Chairperson: Paragraph 114. Are members content?

3017. Members indicated assent.

3018. The Chairperson: Paragraph 115. Are members content?

3019. Members indicated assent.

3020. The Chairperson: Paragraph 116. Are members content?

3021. Members indicated assent.

3022. The Chairperson: Paragraph 117. Are members content?

3023. Members indicated assent.

3024. The Chairperson: Paragraph 118. Are members content?

3025. Members indicated assent.

3026. The Chairperson: Paragraph 119. Are members content?

3027. Members indicated assent.

3028. The Chairperson: Paragraph 120.

3029. Mr Shannon: That is the easiest paragraph to agree.

3030. The Chairperson: Are members content with paragraph 120?

3031. Members indicated assent.

3032. The Chairperson: Paragraph 121. Are members content?

3033. Members indicated assent.

3034. The Chairperson: Paragraph 122. Are members content?

3035. Members indicated assent.

3036. The Chairperson: We will lay the draft report in the Business Office and present any amended clauses at tomorrow’s meeting for members’ information. In addition, the minutes of any outstanding Hansard reports will be circulated for approval.

3037. We then have various appendices to the draft report. The minutes of proceedings are at appendix 1. The minutes of evidence are at appendix 2. Written submissions are at appendix 3, followed by memoranda and papers from the Department at appendix 4. Other memoranda and papers are at appendix 5. The list of witnesses is at appendix 6.

3038. That completes the reading of the draft Committee report.

3039. Mr Shannon: When will it be possible to get a copy of today’s Hansard report?

3040. The Chairperson: It will probably be e-mailed to you later tonight.

3041. The Committee Clerk: It will not be e-mailed later tonight. We will receive two or three copies of the Hansard report. When we get them, we have to get members’ approval. We will circulate them for approval by e-mail. We will get a copy to you as soon as is possible.

3042. Mr W Clarke: Are you making a press statement, Jim?

3043. Mr Shannon: No. I want it so that I can tell people what I have done.

3044. The Committee Clerk: It will be available in a few days.

3045. Mr Shannon: There is no rush. I just wanted to make it clear that I would like a copy of the report.

3046. The Committee Clerk: It is usually returned by Hansard in three days.

3047. Mr Shannon: That is perfect. Thanks very much.

3048. The Chairperson: That completes today’s business and the Committee Stage of the Forestry Bill. It is a good piece of work. Our next meeting is in this room at 1.30 pm tomorrow.

Appendix 3 Written Submissions

1. British Association for Shooting and Conservation

2. Confederation of Forest Industries

3. Mr Albert Danton

4. Farm Woodlands Ltd.

5. National Sheep Association

6. Northern Ireland Environment Link

7. Premier Woodlands Ltd.

8. RSPB Northern Ireland and Woodland Trust – joint submission

9. Sport NI

10. Mr Fred Topping

11. Ulster Angling Federation

12. Ulster Farmers’ Union

The British Association for
Shooting and Conservation

BASC’s comments on the Forestry Bill preparatory to the evidence session on Tuesday 8 December 2009

Introduction

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) is the UK’s largest representative body for sporting shooting, with a membership of around 130,000 people.

We have significant reservations about the Bill as its main thrust is to set out to acquire new powers for Forest Service without appearing to give due consideration to other options that exist for forestry in Northern Ireland, either now or into the future. This is unfortunate, both for the future of forestry and for the wider environment.

We believe that many of the proposed new powers are largely unnecessary, as two main pillars of regulation already exist that offer great scope for proper forest management, together with numerous other minor powers and regulations that already lend support.

There are other issues raised in the document that are simply unacceptable to BASC and its membership, specifically in the area of the proposed powers to create statutory rights for Forest Service staff to go onto private land adjacent to ALL forestry – not simply that belonging to Forest Service - to pursue deer and other species of quarry.

Initial consultations in the development stages of this Bill sought measures to give the Department powers for compulsory purchase of sporting rights. BASC argued its case very strongly and, whilst we welcome the fact that these powers are not sought in the Bill, comments by senior Forest Service staff that they have dropped the proposals “for the time being" leave concerns.

In any case, the powers of access sought within the Bill would convey many of the effects of compulsory purchase, without recourse to the actual purchase. For example, Section 8, with its vague description of an animal “which is living wild and is likely to damage trees" would effectively allow Forest Service to usurp traditional sporting rights where they are the occupier but the rights are reserved.

Other powers are also sought, in relation to requirements for felling licences and management plans, from which Forest Service itself would be exempt. We believe this is unhelpful in terms of land management, as well as shooting and conservation management, and it is both an abuse of power and the creation of unnecessary bureaucracy.

Northern Ireland is notable within Europe as a whole for the extent of the forestry that remains in public ownership. Many of the measures proposed in this Bill seem designed to preserve that imbalance rather than correct it and the powers sought are without check or balance.

BASC Concerns

Forest Service’s new Forestry Bill seeks to take unto the Service a range of unprecedented, sweeping powers.

1 Forest Service wants to have powers for compulsory purchase of land that is of strategic importance.

Many private landowners might wish for similar powers for laudable purposes but they will never get them. Is it right that the State should be able to have such supremacy? If the example that they cite – ref suggestion of gaining access to land-locked public forestry - is their main/only concern, they could address this by seeking powers allowing compulsory, temporary access rather than compulsory purchase. Once power is created to permit compulsory purchase, the extent to which it might be used, or abused, is hard to project from where we currently stand.

If power is to be granted, BASC would hope that the legislation will tightly restrict the instances in which compulsory purchase will be approved.

2 Forest Service has a very respectable ambition of wanting to double forest cover in NI.

However, has this ambition been agreed after consultation and engagement, dialogue and agreement with all of the other land interests in the Province? For example, with the world population predicted to expand by nearly 50% over the next 40 years – ie an additional 3 BILLION people - has consideration been given to the effects of the loss of productive agricultural capacity that a removal from production of 6% of the land mass of NI would deliver, and the impact on annual revenues to the country, as opposed to long term capital growth?

3 Forest Service wants powers to allow their rangers to go on to the private land adjacent to all forestry in Northern Ireland – both publicly and privately owned - to shoot deer.

With current staff and other arrangements, Forest Service cannot control the deer in their own forestry and, much worse, the numbers of foxes in their forestry is widely acknowledged as being at a plague level with massive negative impacts on many of the NI Biodiversity Action Plan Species (eg Red Grouse, Curlew, Irish Hare).

With an ambition to double the area of Northern Ireland that is covered in forest from 6% to 12%, the prospect of government staff being empowered to go onto adjacent land to that 12%, for a distance of up to ½ a kilometre out, would mean armed rangers covering a truly enormous proportion of Northern Ireland.

The case for going onto private land is simply not made; it is against everything that landownership is about, and it has public safety implications as well as legal implications, including potential armed trespass.

4 Forest Service want their staff to be exempt from the provisions of the Wildlife Order (or its successor legislation) and the Game Acts so as to be able to shoot deer day or night, 365 days per year without legal control on appropriate calibres/weights of bullets.

This proposal has appalling implications for deer welfare – orphaned fawns being one of the principal ones. The proposals seek exemption from the wildlife legislation that has been developed through wide consultation and understanding of deer ecology. There is no justification for such sweeping exemption for one small group of government employees from the laws that govern the entire remainder of the population.

Indeed, at present, the Dept of the Environment is currently proposing (in the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill) to scrap the right to Crown immunity for its staff, so it is bizarre in the extreme that the Dept of Agriculture is actively seeking to introduce immunity. This exemption would give FS staff the powers to act in grossly unacceptable ways, yet be immune from any form of controls. The creation of such a lack of independent oversight would be a travesty and is entirely unacceptable. Not only does Forest Service want to be the regulator of forestry for all (and be the largest producer), but they also want to be the regulator of wildlife law for themselves, rather than be answerable to the statutory agency (NIEA) which governs everyone else.

5 Forest Service wants to be able to cull deer that might cause damage, not just those that are actively causing damage.

Again, this is entirely unacceptable, as it is so subjective; all deer might cause damage. It would put the Forest Service beyond control, and completely in charge of deciding policies that could, potentially, see the eradication of the majority of the deer population without check or balance. It is also an opportunity to deprive sporting rights owners without discussion, agreement or compensation.

6 Forest Service wants to be able to recover the cost of such deer culling on private land, supposedly for the benefit of other private woodland owners, from the owners of the adjacent land.

Forest Service currently accepts no responsibility for road traffic accidents caused by wild deer, on the basis that they are “wild". This is correct in law. They also accept no responsibility for losses incurred by sheep farmers to foxes that inhabit their forestry and stray out onto farmland. Yet they want to reverse this in their own interests and cull wild animals on private ground adjacent to any publicly or privately owned woodland, and expect the private landowner to pay. It is worth noting the inconsistency of this even within their own Bill, as it is different from the treatment of invasive plants.

7 Forest Service wants powers for compulsory purchase of land.

This power always raises concern in any Western country unless very tightly controlled. Taken in conjunction with the other direct and indirect powers sought in this Bill, it raises considerable concern.

8 Forest Service proposes powers to create better access to the public forests but they refuse to extend this access to any recreational deerstalkers, thus denying genuine equality of opportunity.

Although Forest Service recognises the value of sporting shooting, they consistently resist the concept of helping to unlock value from stalking in their Estate, unlike their counterparts in Scotland, England and Wales. This is not only an opportunity lost but is a major restriction on legitimate sporting opportunity. Taken in conjunction with some of the powers sought in this Bill, and some that were proposed earlier but have been discarded at the moment, BASC has strong reservations about the intentions of the Service, and the proposals to give them such massive powers with so few checks and balances.

We look forward to giving evidence to the Committee on Tuesday.

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation
2 December 2009

Confederation of Forest Industries

Confederation of Forest Industries logo

ConFor (Confederation of Forest Industries) has been established to represent forestry and wood using businesses from nurseries and growers to wood-processing end-users. ConFor aims to help build the market for timber and timber products, create a supportive policy environment for the forestry and wood using sector and to help members become more competitive and successful. ConFor has by far the largest membership of any representative body in the sector.

Real progress has been made in recent decades in Northern Ireland (NI) to develop a modern, successful forestry and wood-using sector. It is one of the few sectors in NI that can deliver both sustainable economic development and help in the fight against climate change. Growing trees sequesters carbon and sustainably produced wood can be used to lock up carbon and substitute for more energy-intensive materials, such as brick, steel and plastics. Wood can also be used to generate renewable energy.

The NI forestry and wood-using sector is a local source of employment and investment. No other industry can claim that it can profitably integrate economic, social and environmental concerns without damage, and to the benefit of all stakeholders. The wood processing sector in the region has the capacity to increase production and hence provide additional economic activity and carbon benefit if more wood can be brought to market.

It is estimated that wood processing businesses alone provided £9.2m of wages, in addition to the £33.5m of estimated expenditure on goods and services. Latest investment figures are estimated to be approximately £13m a year, including the first Combined Heat and Power plant in the NI forest products sector. The sector is responsible for tens of millions of pounds of investment on the back of supplies of wood.

Wood processing supports the sustainable management of most of NI’s woodlands – both public and private. In other countries of the UK in recent years, government policy has to varying degrees forgotten the important link between woodland and the use of wood, and has had to rediscover it. It is important that this link is not lost in NI.

The Northern Ireland Forest Service (NIFS) has played an important role in helping support the development of the sector, but there is a lot more that can be achieved. It is vital that the new Forestry Bill builds on this record of achievement.

In that context ConFor would like to see a clear reference to the importance of achieving the Assembly’s target to double the area of woodland in NI to 150,000ha by 2050, and to ensure that there is a continuing and growing supply of sustainably produced wood to support the expansion of a low carbon wood processing sector. At present the area of productive woodland in NI is reducing. Increased new planting would have the dual benefit of locking up carbon and helping to provide future supplies of wood.

Increased new planting will also provide a means to respond to other stakeholders’ requests for more woodland to be managed primarily for recreational access and biodiversity. ConFor recognises that other stakeholder groups will look for the new Forestry Bill to deliver more for their interests and that can be accommodated better through an increase in woodland area. At present NI’s woodland cover is amongst the lowest in Europe – just 6% against an average of 44% in Europe.

Key issues

ConFor is generally content with the draft Bill, subject to the overarching points set out above about ensuring the continued growth of the sector and the need to deliver increased levels of new planting, and the specific comments set out below.

Felling licences

ConFor’s principal concern over felling licences is the intention to charge for a licence. No charge is made in Great Britain or the Republic of Ireland. A charge could well act as a disincentive to plant new woods or manage existing woodlands. This would have the perverse effect of undermining the central purpose of the Bill.

Charging would also add a cost to private woodland owners’ activity that would not also be borne by NIFS, even though both may hold the same certificate for sustainable forest management. If independent certification is a justification for exempting NIFS then it should also be considered for the private sector.

ConFor recognises that there can be benefit in introducing felling licences to respond to increasing government demand for green timber procurement and in response to discussions in the EU on tackling imports of illegally logged wood and putting systems for ‘due diligence’ in place. However, there are major concerns over how felling licences could be introduced, and the potential damage that could have on the Bill’s central aim of promoting sustainable forest management in NI.

Green timber procurement and due diligence policies are aimed at tackling illegal and unsustainable practices overseas, and ensuring that UK imports of wood do not contribute to these. There is not a major problem of illegality or unsustainable activity in NI. Consequently it is important that felling licences are introduced in a proportionate manner, and that they complement, rather than duplicate existing voluntary forest certification.

It is also important that they are introduced in a way that recognises NI’s own situation – in Great Britain felling licensing can be a lengthy process due to the need for consultation with statutory bodies that vary from area to area. In NI the scale of woodland activity is much smaller and NIFS is well-placed to ensure compliance with appropriate policies and legislation, meaning that the requirement for such consultation could be significantly reduced.

Consideration should also be given to providing support for long-term management plans, as is the case in Scotland. These plans both cover the need for a felling licence and promote the long-term sustainable management of the woodland – a real benefit for NI and firmly in line with the aim of the Bill.

Compulsory acquisition of land

ConFor understands that the compulsory purchase clause has been included primarily to provide for situations where there is no effective access to a NIFS woodland to undertake timber harvesting activity, and that it could also be used to purchase small, additional areas of land to enable development on NIFS woodland to proceed, for example for a windfarm. However, there is no limitation set on its potential use and this is an issue of concern.

ConFor believes that there needs to be greater clarity over the purposes for which the power would be used and full consideration of practical alternatives. This could include, for example, a new power of temporary requisition of land with compensation during the period which access is required with subsequent reinstatement to the landowners’ satisfaction. ConFor would also expect that the route of agreed purchase would be explored thoroughly before making a compulsory purchase.

It would also be useful if there was clarification over how any system of compulsory purchase would operate. For example, that its use should follow the principles used in other processes of compulsory purchase.

ConFor recognises that there are situations where wood is ‘land-locked’ and a measure such as this would be appropriate. However, ConFor would also ask that the principle of acting to access land-locked timber was extended to privately owned woodland. In these situations the mechanism is likely to be different from compulsory purchase, for example NIFS supporting negotiation with the owner of land over which access is required.

Controlling vegetation and pests

ConFor recognises that increased rates of new planting will be difficult to achieve as the number of damaging pests, in particular deer, also increases. However, it is important that targeted action is taken, as deer control, for example, is not a problem in all areas.

It is not clear that the route of giving power, through this Bill, to the NIFS to control pests such as deer is the most effective way of achieving the objective. In order to be effective the NIFS needs to support and participate in deer management groups, working closely with private landowners..

Right of access to all NIFS woodlands

If NIFS takes forward a pedestrian right of access to all NIFS woodlands then the impact on owners of sporting rights needs to be fully considered and acted on.

ConFor
5 November 2009

Mr Albert Danton

From: Alfie Danton

Sent: 26 October 2009 17:56

To: +Comm. Agriculture Public Email

Subject: draft forestry bill

I write conserning the above, I am a farmer who all my life has had an interest in forestry and have planted aprox 25 acres on my own land and I have aprox 475 acres in Scotland planted 8/9 years ago. I am concerned that the present Bill as it stands gives an un level playing field in favour of state forestry as opposed to private forestry. I would suggest that all recreational woodlands and native species mix forests should be the responsibility of state forests leaving private forests to be established on a purely commercial basis. Even with the present financial incentives which are not all attractive any further disinsentives will reduce private planting even more.

Albert F Danton

Farm Woodlands Ltd

Farm Woodlands logo

FARM WOODLANDS LTD
59 Main Street,
Augher, Co. Tyrone.
BT77 0BG.
Tel/Fax: (028) 85549920

www.farmwoodlands.co.uk

Mr P Carlisle
Committee Clerk
Agriculture & Rural Development
Northern Ireland Assembly
Parliament Buildings
Belfast

5th November 2009

RE: Consultation on Forestry Bill

Dear Mr Carlisle

We welcome this opportunity to comment on the Forestry Bill as introduced.

Part 1. General duty of the Department.

We agree that the Department has the general duty of promoting forestry, but this should also include the interests of Private Forestry in Northern Ireland.

Part 1. Compulsory acquisition of land.

We do not agree that the Department should have the powers to acquire compulsorily, any land that it requires. The Forestry industry of the future should not be paying for the poor management decisions of the past that allowed the establishment of woodland on small, uneconomical or land locked sites.

If compulsory purchase of land by the Department is established, then the converse must also be established. Thus adjacent landowners must also have the right to compulsory land acquisition from the Department estates.

Part 3. Requirement of licence for felling.

We do not agree with the concept that private individuals / landowners have to apply for a felling licence, whilst the Department is exempt. In the interests of fairness, the same rules must be applied to all parties in the felling of trees, irrespective of whether the land is in private or state ownership.

Part 3. Fees in connection with felling licences.

We disagree with the introduction of fees for felling licence application, issuing or continuation of same. There must be no extra administrative or financial burden on landowners in the felling of trees.

Yours Faithfully

Willie Mc Kenna.
Farm Woodlands

National Sheep Association

Edward Adamson
N.I. Region NSA
6 Fort Rd
Kilroot
Carrickfergus
BT38 9BS

Tel/Fax 02893366225

Mob. 07711071290

The Clerk of the Committee
Room 284
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast

18th November 2009

Draft Forestry Bill

Please find below some comments from N.I. Region of The National Sheep Association.

The NSA feels it would be unfair to place such controls as suggested on privately owned land.

The Compulsory Purchase of land is a contentious issue at any time and we feel that it would be unfair to enforce the sale of privately owned land without the consent of the owner.

To seek powers to control wildlife on lands neighbouring government owned forests has far reaching implications and could jeopardize incomes and land management agreements. Stockproof fencing would seem the most sensible remedy and other required control measures e.g. Fire buffer zones should be within the government owned lands around forests.

Landowners are already burdened with excess controls and a tree-felling license would just be another unnecessary piece of red tape. Present controls on tree felling are adequate.

Thank you for allowing me to make comment on behalf of N. I. NSA.

Your Sincerely

Edward Adamson
N.I. Development Officer
National Sheep Association

NI Environment Link

NI Environment Link logo

26 June 2008

Northern Ireland Environment Link is the networking and forum body for non-statutory organisations concerned with the environment of Northern Ireland. Its 51 Full Members represent over 85,000 individuals, 262 subsidiary groups, have an annual turnover of £100 million and manage over 314,000 acres of land. Members are involved in environmental issues of all types and at all levels from the local community to the global environment.

These comments are agreed by Members, but some members may be providing independent comments as well. If you would like to discuss these comments we would be delighted to do so.

Prof Sue Christie, Director
Northern Ireland Environment Link
89 Loopland Drive
Belfast, BT6 9DW

P: 028 9045 5770
E: Sue@nienvironmentlink.org
W: www.nienvironmentlink.org

Northern Ireland Environment Link is a Company limited by guarantee No NI034988 and a Charity registered with Inland Revenue No XR19598

Introduction

Northern Ireland Environment Link (NIEL) welcomes the progression of proposed legislation to replace the 1953 Forestry Act. We agree that the Forestry Act is outdated and that work on its replacement should continue expeditiously. However, this should not continue at the expense of proper consultation with all relevant stakeholders. Limiting the circulation of the proposals to only some of those organisations that responded to the ‘Options for Forestry’ is not appropriate and a two week consultation period is inadequate.

Although NIEL responded to the original document it did not receive notice of this consultation. While the Forest Service may argue that the ‘Options for Forestry’ consultation was robust and that the new draft Forestry Bill may also ‘go out to consultation’ NIEL believes that involvement of stakeholders at each stage of the policy development process will help ensure improved policy outcomes. The original consultation occurred three years ago and “A Strategy for Sustainability and Growth’ was not uniformly welcomed, therefore, it is only appropriate that further consultation be undertaken. The Cabinet Office has issued a Code of Practice on Consultation which recommends that 12 weeks is the minimum appropriate period for consultation and that:

“Where a consultation period is less than 12 weeks this must be highlighted in the consultation document, which should explain the Minister’s reasons for this, and the extra efforts taken to ensure that the consultation is as effective as possible."

NIEL looks forward to participating in an appropriate consultation exercise on the publication of the draft Forestry Bill. The details that the draft Forestry Bill should contain will also allow more detailed comments in response.

Proposed Provisions of the new Forestry Act

Purpose

The widening of the Department’s purpose beyond responsibility “for promoting interests of forestry" to reflect the “economic, social and environmental context of modern forestry" is welcome (this would better reflect how forestry is approached across the UK and EU) but this proposal needs amplification and explanation. The Department must move from being responsible for timber production towards encouraging sustainable woodland management: viewing the Forestry Service’s primary role as timber production is outdated and does not reflect the need for Government to mitigate and adapt to climate change, to halt biodiversity loss and to increase public warning, nor does it reflect the public’s desire for these public goods.

A clearly defined purpose should be developed to include aims: to deliver woodland management and to provide timber and other forestry products, deliver ecosystem services and help Northern Ireland adapt to climate change (for example, carbon sinks and flood alleviation), to restore and enhance biodiversity (this may become a statutory requirement with the introduction of a revised Wildlife Order), to provide opportunities for recreation, to be used as an educational resource, and to protect the heritage represented in our ancient woodlands.

Proposals to extend the Department’s practical powers so that they can be used to achieve goals beyond timber production and to achieve sustainable woodland management would be welcome. There will be instances when the Department may not be able to provide all these desired goods concurrently; however, management prescriptions should aim to achieve integration when possible and balance when necessary.

Obtaining Value for the Public Estate

Northern Ireland Environment Link supports placing a statutory duty on all public bodies, including Forest Service, to further the conservation of biodiversity through the restoration and enhancement of species’ populations and habitats. This duty should be considered when analysing options designed to obtain better value for the public estate. While NIEL wishes to promote renewable energy, the imperative for developing renewable energy projects must not be used to justify bad schemes or those in inappropriate areas. The overall impact of wind farm developments must be carefully assessed. Any proposed wind farm must not significantly impact on either designated sites or any ancient long-established woodland. Similarly, the provision of tourist facilities should be developed in an integrated way, with special consideration given to protecting the integrity of ancient woodland and semi-natural sites. Recreational facilities and renewable energy projects can provide added value if sited appropriately (for example, upland conifer forests may be appropriate sites for wind farms) but this must be carefully managed within the overall aim of achieving sustainable woodland management.

Conversion of land from forestry to other purposes, through disposal or without sale, must be considered carefully and only allowed after full and detailed environmental impact assessments, sustainability assessments and appropriate consultation demonstrate that it is in the public interest.

Disposal of Land

The Department owns large amounts of land which might be of great value for development, and hence provide a valuable asset which could be seen as a way to finance other aspects of its work. The value of these areas for wildlife, public recreation, landscape and ecosystem services must be taken into account and such areas should only be disposed of after full and detailed environmental impact assessments, sustainability assessments and appropriate consultation. NIEL would only envisage the sale of land in exceptional circumstances.

We note that the aim in ‘A Strategy for Sustainability and Growth’, was to double the area of forest in Northern Ireland in 50 years. This was not noted in the proposals, and any revision to the Forestry Act should ensure that Forest Service has as a primary function the delivery of woodland creation in Northern Ireland. NIEL also believes that a more ambitious and prescriptive (re)afforestation target is needed to include, the targeted planting of native species.

Felling Licenses

The proposal to reintroduce felling licences is welcomed in principle. It is important that the felling license legislation is carefully drafted and that stakeholders are given an opportunity to consider the detail of the provisions. Adequate support must be available to assess whether felling is appropriate (the protection of ancient and/or semi-natural woodland must be a priority), to develop management plans, to advise land owners on the most suitable time for felling to reduce negative impacts on biodiversity and to recommend the most appropriate planting regime. There must also be co-ordination with Planning Service to ensure Tree Preservation Orders are respected as necessary.

Given that we have such a limited amount of ancient woodland and, the lowest woodland cover in Europe, NIEL believes that our most important trees and woodlands should receive full protection. Any site on the Ancient Woodland Inventory must be afforded absolute legislative protection.

Compulsory Purchase

The power to compulsorily purchase woodland should also be taken to improve the resilience of native species woodlands and their associated biodiversity. This should facilitate the creation of a network of habitats linked by woodland ‘landscape’ corridors. There is also a real need to rebuild woodland cover, with native broadleaf species, by buffering and extending woodland habitats. Northern Ireland has the lowest woodland cover of any European country: only 6 percent compared to a European average of 44 percent.

Powers to Cull

Northern Ireland Environment Link supports the inclusion of the Irish Hare in Schedule 5 of the Wildlife Order if it can be shown to be a distinct species. Furthermore, we believe that the provision to allow any woodland owner to destroy Schedule 5 species should only be conducted under license and that any animal should only be destroyed after alternative management solutions have proved unsuccessful.

Premier Woodlands Ltd

Mr Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for Agriculture & Rural Development
Room 284
Parliament Buildings, Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX

6 November 2009

Introduction:

Premier Woodlands are an indigenous forest management company, based in Northern Ireland, with operations throughout Ireland and most parts of Great Britain. We have been in business for almost 20 years and originally concentrated on woodland management and establishment in Northern Ireland. But, due to the lack of growth and opportunities, we extended our operations into the other areas. The woodland area under our management equates to approximately the total area of private woodland in Northern Ireland. Our services include woodland establishment, management, maintenance, timber harvesting and investment.

Generally, the proposed Forestry Bill will do little to encourage the doubling of woodland cover in Northern Ireland over the next 50 years. As it is over 50 years since the last Forestry Act was introduced, and it may be another 50 years before this matter is re-examined, it is vitally important that this proposed Forestry Bill is fit for purpose.

Our response to the Bill has been laid out in the form of a specific, line-by-line commentary.

The Bill

Part 1 – Functions of the Department

Paragraph 1

The word ‘expand’ must be included in this paragraph, on the following basis...The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has the general duty of promoting and expanding forestry.

Paragraph 2

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 3

Recognition has to be taken of DARD land, where they do not own sporting rights (shooting rights).

Paragraph 4

We raise a general concern that DARD could begin to operate as a commercial business outside of forestry activities and use unfair competition (crown exemption) against the smaller private sector. Therefore, this paragraph requires re-drafting in order to define the term ‘purpose other than forestry’ activities.

Paragraph 5

This is the most contentious proposal within Part 1 of the Bill. This paragraph requires re-drafting and a clear definition given of the circumstances in which the compulsory acquisition of land may be used as, potentially, it would give a very unfair advantage to the Department, especially for non forestry purposes..

Paragraph 6

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 7

Incidental Powers represent another very contentious area. This paragraph must be re-drafted and the ‘Incidental Powers’ clearly defined.

Part 2 – Protection of Forest Trees from damage

Paragraph 8

This paragraph requires re-drafting as it does not take into full consideration the fact with regard to a large percentage ( estimate 50%) of the Forest Service estate land, the sporting rights are not owned by the Department. There is little or no recognition of animal welfare within this draft paragraph.

Paragraph 9

This is the most contentious paragraph within this part of the Bill. The paragraph requires re-drafting, as this would potentially allow the Department to authorise shooting on private land, over which they have no jurisdiction (or crown exemption?). We believe these proposed powers do not sit within existing firearms legislation or the 1985 Wildlife Order. Animal welfare concerns have also been ignored.

Paragraph 10

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 11

This paragraph requires re-drafting as we believe it does not sit well with other legislation.

Paragraph 12

No Comment at this time.

Paragraph 13

No Comment at this time.

Part 3 – Felling of trees

Paragraph 14

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 15

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 16

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 17

This paragraph requires re-drafting to clarify what a felling management plan requirements clearly are and the ability to grant aid the felling management plan as per other UK jurisdictions.

Paragraph 18

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 19

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 20

This paragraph requires re-drafting to allow the Department not to charge for felling licences until such time as it becomes accepted practice in the rest of the UK.

Paragraph 21

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 22

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 23

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 24

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 25

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 26

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 27

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 28

This paragraph requires re-drafting as it gives unfair advantage to the Department by exempting it from the felling licence system. The Department rationale to justify their exemption is because all the Department woodland is certificated to international standards of forest management and accredited under the UK Woodland Assurance Scheme (UKWAS). Our company and others in the private sector also run Forest Certification Group Schemes, managed to international standards and accredited to UKWAS, yet no concessions are offered.

Paragraph 29

No Comment at this time

Part 4 – Miscellaneous and Supplementary

Paragraph 30

This paragraph requires re-drafting as we do not agree with giving the public a pedestrian right of access on all forestry land for recreation, as the Department do not own sporting rights on up to 50% of the land.

Paragraph 31

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 32

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 33

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 34

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 35

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 36

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 37

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 38

No Comment at this time

Paragraph 39

No Comment at this time

Concluding Remarks

We believe the ARD Committee should have the ability to request that some of this primary legislation is subject to secondary legislation, which also requires the scrutiny and approval of the ARD Committee. Everyone agrees that doubling the area of woodland in Northern Ireland will produce many wide ranging, positive benefits. The evidence to date shows the rate of new planting to be at very low levels, which has been the case for some time. There is little or no evidence within this draft Bill which convinces us that this situation will radically change. As this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity in drafting a new forestry Bill, we are disappointed and discouraged with the proposed measures now on the table plus the extension of crown exemption instead of its removal in line with other pieces of legislation.

We look forward to having the opportunity of speaking to the Committee members and expanding the issues raised in this submission.

Yours faithfully

John Hetherington
Managing Director

RSPB NI and Woodland Trust

Sport NI

Mr Fred Topping

Ulster Angling Federation

From: Jim Haughey

Sent: 06 November 2009 15:13

To: +Comm. Agriculture Public Email

Subject: Draft Forestry Bill

To;

The Clerk to the Assembly Agricultural Committee
Room 284
Stormont

Dear Sir,

We would comment on the Draft Forestry Bill as follows;

The Ulster Angling Federation is the representative body for game angling associations in Northern Ireland. We have a membership of some 60 associations with a total individual membership of some 7,000 anglers. The Federation represents anglers in discussions with Public Bodies, Government and other NGO’s and has been in existence since 1930. We are represented on a wide range of committees to ensure the concerns of anglers are heard.

The Pricewaterhouse Coopers Report of July 2007 for DCAL on the social and economic value of angling in NI, states that all forms of angling in NI support some 780 full time equivalent jobs, and are worth some £40m p.a. to the NI economy, mostly from game angling. If this jobs/economic benefit is to maintained and enhanced, the provision of good water quality is absolutely vital for our fisheries.

We fully support the comments made in the RSPB NI and Woodland Trust shared “Briefing paper for the Second Reading of the Forestry Bill; 15 September 2009" which is being sent to you under separate cover.

We would also make the following points;

1 We have been advised that clear felling has caused problems of water pollution, and local flooding, and request that adequate provision be made in the Bill to afford some measure of control over clear felling to avoid these problems.

2 We have also been advised that removal of stumps etc after clear felling has caused problems in that runoff after rain has caused silt to be deposited in local streams. As these are very often upland streams, they tend to be spawning areas for salmon and trout. Again, we request that adequate provision be made in the Bill to afford some measure of control over removal of stumps etc after clear felling to avoid these problems.

Yours faithfully,

Jim Haughey
Chairman
Ulster Angling Federation

Ulster Farmers Union

Appendix 4 Memoranda and Papers from Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

1. DARD consultation paper on proposed provisions of the draft Bill (June 2008)

2. DARD response to consideration of Bill clauses queries

3. DARD press release re increase in forestry grants (November 2009)

4. DARD response re statutory public access to forestry land

5. DARD briefing papers for meeting of 26 January 2010

6. DARD briefing papers for meeting of 1 February 2010

Sample felling licence application form
Forest Service Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI) Woodland Management Strategy

7. DARD briefing papers for meeting of 8 February 2010

8. DARD briefing papers for meeting of 15 February 2010

Steps for use of compulsory acquisition powers

9. DARD briefing papers for meeting of 22 February 2010

Protection for persons acting under clause 11

DARD Consultation Paper on
Proposed Provisions of draft Bill

DARD Consultation Paper on Proposed Provisions of draft Bill

DARD Response to Consideration of Bill Clauses Queries

Consideration of Bill Clauses – Master Document

DARD Press Release - Increase in Forestry Grants

From: EIS.Newsservice@ofmdfmni.gov.uk [mailto:EIS.Newsservice@ofmdfmni.gov.uk]
Sent: 26 November 2009 10:26
To: EIS.Newsservice@ofmdfmni.gov.uk
Subject: DARD News Release - GILDERNEW CALLS ON FARMERS TO CREATE MORE WOODLAND

Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

235/09

26 November 2009

Gildernew calls on farmers to create more woodland

Minister Michelle Gildernew MP, MLA, today announced increases in forestry grants, under the Rural Development Programme, to encourage more farmers and landowners to create their own woodland.

Woodland Grant Scheme (WGS) rates are set to rise by up to 30%. The scheme is open to all landowners wishing to establish new woodland. The Farm Woodland Premium Scheme (FWPS) which provides an annual payment for up to 15 years to compensate for loss of agricultural income, will see its rates increased by as much as 50%.

Minister Gildernew said: “We know that woodlands are important for many reasons, from the more obvious benefits of timber and woodfuel production, to a haven for wildlife and an increasing demand for places which people can enjoy. We are also now aware that climate change is a global problem and carbon dioxide emissions are the main cause of climate change. Trees have the unique ability to capture and store carbon dioxide, and in addition, by using wood, we can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide released in comparison with using other materials such as concrete and steel.

"Unfortunately the north of Ireland is among the least wooded areas in Europe and we have set challenging targets to increase our woodland cover. Despite the pressures on expenditure and financial constraints, I am very keen to create greater incentives for farmers and landowners to plant trees so that we can all benefit from the advantages of more woodland. Now is a good time to take advantage of the new grant scheme rates and apply to Forest Service to plant your own wood in time for the coming tree planting season."

The announcement was made following Forest Service consultation with a cross section of stakeholders involved in woodland creation and a subsequent review of the Woodland Grant Scheme and Farm Woodland Premium Scheme payment rates.

The Woodland Grant Scheme will now pay £2,400 per hectare for broad-leaved woodland and £1,600 per hectare for conifer woodland.

For new farmer applicants and farmer applicants under the current Farm Woodland Premium Scheme open since January 2007, annual payment rates will increase by as much as 50%. These higher rates range up to £290 per hectare (or £117 per acre) per year and compare very favourably with current conacre rates for grassland. They depend on the category of land to be planted and whether it is inside or outside the Less Favoured Areas (LFA), so check first before applying.

Forest Service will also continue to provide funding for the Short Rotation Coppice Scheme, at least until 2013 when the current Rural Development Programme comes to an end. Already farmers have created approximately 800 ha of Short Rotation Coppice for an energy end use, under this scheme, and its predecessor, the Short Rotation Coppice Challenge Fund.

Lastly, for those of you claiming Single Farm Payment (SFP) in 2008, remember that you can now plant your land, and continue to claim SFP as well as the annual FWPS forestry payments.

For further details on forestry grant schemes, phone Forest Service on 028 9076 5391, email to grants.forestservice@dardni.gov.uk or go to the Forest Service website www.forestserviceni.gov.uk.

Notes to editors:

1. The Woodland Grant Scheme (WGS) provides grant aid to establish new woodland of at least 0.2 hectare (half an acre) and is open to all landowners, not just farmers. Forest Service has increased the Woodland Grant Scheme rates by up to 30% and they are: For broad-leaved woodland - £2,400 per hectare; for conifer woodland - £1,600 per hectare. The new WGS rates will apply to all claims received from 23 November 2009.

2. The Farm Woodland Premium Scheme (FWPS) provides an annual payment for up to 15 years to compensate for loss of agricultural income. Rates depend on the category of land to be planted and whether it is inside or outside the Less Favoured Areas (LFA). We have increased rates for farmer applicants under the current FWPS scheme by as much as 50% to stimulate increased uptake. The new FWPS rates will be paid from this year on. They will apply to all FWPS agreements with applications made under the current Rural Development Programme, i.e. from 1 January 2007. They will not be retrospective.

3. FWPS agreements prior to 1 January 2007 have been reviewed and uplifted by a more modest 5%.

4. The Farm Woodland Premium Scheme is part EU funded under the Rural Development Programme and to be eligible for the above rates, you must be a farmer, defined as someone who obtains at least 25% of your gross income from farming. If you are not a farmer as defined above, you may be eligible for the lower rate of annual payment, which remains capped at a maximum of £100 per hectare per year.

5. Further details of Forestry Grant Schemes are available by phoning Forest Service on 028 9076 5391, by email to grants.forestservice@dardni.gov.uk or through the Forest Service website www.forestserviceni.gov.uk.

6. All media enquiries should be directed to the DARD Press Office on 028 9052 4619. Out of office hours please contact the duty press officer via pager number 07699 715 440 and your call will be returned.

This is an automated distribution service - please do not reply to this email address.

DARD Response
re Statutory Public Access to Forestry Land

From: Carlisle, Paul
Sent: 09 February 2010 11:38
To: ‘Small, David’
Cc: O’Boyle, John; Morwood, Stuart; McCann, Michael; Irwin, Ian; Mageean, Shauna; Mark O’Hare; McCoy, Michael
Subject: RE: Forest Bill

David

Thanks

Paul

From: Roberts, Jackie [mailto:Jackie.Roberts@dardni.gov.uk] On Behalf Of Small, David
Sent: 09 February 2010 11:37
To: Carlisle, Paul
Cc: O’Boyle, John; Morwood, Stuart; McCann, Michael; Irwin, Ian
Subject: RE: Forest Bill
Importance: High

Paul,

1. This was raised by a number of stakeholders and we have considered the point. We are satisfied that pedestrian access is low impact and low risk and can be reasonably accommodated in our forests. Access for cycling and horse-riding, which was also proposed, raise different issues for us, particularly in terms of public liability and our duty of care to other users - we would not wish, therefore, to extend a statutory right of access beyond pedestrian access.

2. We do acknowledge, however, the demands for greater provision for cycling and horse-riding in the forests and we already make significant provision. We will consider further opportunities, however, as part of our forest planning process and, as you are aware, we are currently in discussion with District Councils about cycling provision at Rostrevor, Castlewellan and, possibly, Davagh Forest in Cookstown, and with the National Trust at Castleward. We are also exploring further opportunities for pony-trekking with the British Horse Society.

3. We will continue these efforts to facilitate cycling and horse-riding, but in a properly managed way, where public liability and duty of care issues are properly addressed. This is the appropriate approach, rather than a statutory right of accesss.

DAVID

From: Carlisle, Paul [mailto:Paul.Carlisle@niassembly.gov.uk]
Sent: 08 February 2010 15:39
To: Small, David
Cc: McCann, Michael; Mageean, Shauna; Mark O’Hare; McCoy, Michael
Subject: Forest Bill

David

Can you tell me if DARD/FS has given any thought to extending statutory access beyond pedestrians and to include cyclists etc?

Paul

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Agriculture and Rural
Development Committee
oom 284
Parliament Buildings
Stormont Estate
Belfast
BT4 3XX
Tel: (028) 9052 1063
Email: paul.carlisle@niassembly.gov.uk

This email is strictly confidential. It may be privileged. It is intended for use only by the intended addressee.

If you have received it in error, we would be grateful if you would tell the sender, and then permanently delete it. If you are not the intended addressee, then any copying, distributing, disclosing of, or relying on the information in the email is prohibited.

Opinions or facts expressed in this email are not necessarily those of the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission.

This email has been checked for viruses, but the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission disclaims any liability for damage caused by any virus transmitted by it. The Commission may monitor any email on its system.

DARD Briefing Papers for Meeting
of 26 January 2010

David Small
Forest Service
Dundonald House
Upper Newtownards Road
BELFAST
BT4 3SB
Phone: 02890 524480
Fax: 02890 524570
Email: david.small@dardni.gov.uk
www.forestserviceni.gov.uk

21 January 2010

Dear Paul

Forestry Bill – Proposed Amendments

Forest Service officials will be present at the Forestry Bill evidence session to be held on Tuesday 26 January 2010. The attached briefing paper sets out proposed amendments to several key clauses of the Forestry Bill, in light of Committee and stakeholder concerns. Officials will present the paper and deal with questions from Committee members.

Yours sincerely

David Small sig
David Small
Chief Executive

CC: Mr Joe Cassells
Ms Shauna Mageean
Mr Mark O’Hare
Ms Diane McClean

If you have a hearing difficulty you can contact
The Department via the textphone on 028 9052 4420

An Roinn Talmhaíochta Forbartha Tuaithe
Månnystrie o Fairms an Kintra Fordèrin

Forestry Bill: Proposed Scope for Amendment -
Dard Briefing Paper

Purpose of the Forestry Bill

The main purpose of the Bill is to put in place a statutory framework that will support the sustainable forest management of all our forests, support the expansion of forest cover in Northern Ireland, protect public and private woodland from damage; and provide the necessary powers to enable the full potential of forests to deliver social, economic and environmental benefits to be realised. The provisions in the Bill are designed to support and enable these broad objectives. The proposed powers in Clause 4, for example, are needed to promote and facilitate proposals to develop tourism and leisure opportunities which the Committee and stakeholders have indicated are important. Other provisions are needed to support the production and supply of forest products which are essential to the forest industry and wood processing sector and the rural jobs provided by the industry. This is vital, since without a viable wood processing sector, sustainable management of forest will be impossible and it will not be possible to deliver the important wider benefits, such as tourism, sport, health, and biodiversity. The Bill and its provisions are designed to support these important objectives.

Proposed Amendments

1. The Department met with the Committee after the Second Stage debate, and has since met with various stakeholders. We have also seen the transcripts of the evidence given by stakeholders to the Committee. In response, we now propose a number of amendments to the Bill which it is hoped, in a balanced and reasonable way, will address concerns around some sections of the Bill. We can convey to the Committee the principle of each proposed amendment and its rationale. In this paper we will also address areas where a call for amendment in our view is difficult to accommodate, and a supporting explanation.

General Duty of the Department (section 1)

2. Section 1 is the foundation of the Bill and as presently drafted describes the Department’s duty “to promote forestry". This duty has been expanded beyond the 1953 duty to promote traditional forestry to include the wider economic, environmental and social context of modern forestry. In this way, the Bill as drafted reflects the modern understanding of what is meant by sustainable forestry.

3. However, the Committee and a number of stakeholders have criticised section 1, and would like the sustainability ethos more overtly expressed. They also maintain that it does not give a sense of a proactive vision of forest expansion or the contribution to climate change. They also are unhappy that the sustainability duty is imposed on forestry land only, and not on privately owned woodland, or indeed on any other publicly owned woodland (including that owned by other Government departments).

4. They have also expressed the view that the structuring of section 1 (2) gives the sense that sub-section 1(2)(a) asserts that the real business of forestry is the traditional timber production, and the other two aspects, environmental and social (sub-section 1(2)(b)), are merely subordinate to this. On the other hand, the UFU has categorically stated that it would view the extension of sustainability duties beyond that to be imposed on forestry land as a real disincentive to farmers and other landowners who may be considering woodland creation.

5. The Department has been reluctant to apply a statutory sustainability duty on private woodland in recognition of the additional burden that this may impose on many of our small privately owned woodlands and the inappropriateness of enforcing what are largely advisory standards of good forestry practice. At present, private woodland in receipt of Government support must meet sustainability criteria established in the mostly advisory UK Forestry Standard (UKFS), and felling licences will be another tool to ensure sustainable management. However, not all aspects of UKFS are relevant to many small forests, and the standard cannot be enforced as a mandatory one.

Proposed amendments to the general duty

6. Having reflected on both the concerns of the Committee and stakeholders, and how an acceptable balance may be achieved in all of this, the Department is proposing to re-draft section 1 along the following lines:

(a) Section 1(1) be re-drafted to express explicitly a general duty to promote “sustainable forestry and afforestation as a means of mitigating climate change", rather than simply one, as in the current draft, of “promoting forestry" This is in response to Committee’s concerns and at the request of the Minister.

(b) Section 1(2) be re-drafted to support the meaning of “sustainable forestry". The Department has always understood the activities included in the definition of “forestry", in section 1(2)(a) and (b) of the draft Bill as tantamount to “sustainable forestry".

(c) To address concerns expressed by the Committee and stakeholders that the duty to protect the environment in section 1(2) only applies to the Department’s forests, the Department proposes to extend the proposed Departmental duty to promote sustainable forest management to all forests. As such the duty will be placed on the Department to promote sustainable forestry; rather than impose an express duty on all forests to adhere to sustainable forestry management, especially where privately-owned forests, depending on their size and function may not be able, or be reasonably expected to, adhere to all of the UKFS. This will enable the Department to promote sustainable management in all forests, but in a manner appropriate to their purpose, business and realistic capability, and hopefully in a measured and reasonable manner which will not alienate prospective landowners contemplating entering woodland creation but wary of the imposition of unnecessary bureaucracy.

(d) Given the Committee’s and some stakeholders’ concerns that that the structuring of section 1(2) gives the sense that sub-section (a) asserts that the real business of forestry is the traditional timber production, and the other two aspects, environmental and social are merely subordinate to this, the Department is proposing that the structure of the clause be re-drafted.

Section 5: Compulsory acquisition of land

7. This section of the Bill has attracted concern from the Committee and several stakeholders. It is perceived as a power which is too widely drafted, in that the Department may acquire compulsorily any land for any of its functions. The Department has always asserted that it is seeking this power primarily to help deal with situations where its forests and the associated timber assets are landlocked and access, even after reasonable negotiation, cannot be secured. In these situations, the public value of mature timber, the result of many years of public investment, could be lost. However, there may be other circumstances where land may be required, for example, to facilitate access to potential recreation or tourism initiatives or for biodiversity purposes, but access is blocked and all reasonable negotiation to buy the land has failed.

8. We recognise the Committee’s primary concern that the Department may use this power to acquire large tracts of land to create forests. We have discussed these concerns with the Minister who is minded to bring forward appropriate amendments to address them. However, before we consider how these powers may be restricted, we would like to take views from the Committee.

Extension of the power on behalf of the private forest sector

9. There have been representations to the Department and to the Committee that compulsory acquisition powers to access landlocked timber will give the Department an unfair competitive advantage over the private forestry sector, and that the latter should have that power, or the Department should be able to exercise it in similar circumstances on the private sector’s behalf. The Department’s legal advice is that this would be incompatible with Article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act, which is a general guarantee against interference by the state with a person’s right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The Department can satisfy a public interest justification (its timber being a public asset), which would not apply in the case of private forests.

Woodland Inventory (section 6)

10. The Committee and some stakeholders have called for a statutory requirement in this section for the Department to conduct and maintain a woodland inventory of forest cover in Northern Ireland. In response, the Department is proposing that such a duty be added to this section.

Restriction of Incidental Powers (section 7)

11. This section of the Bill has attracted concerns from the Committee and stakeholders as being potentially too wide-sweeping in that section 7(1) opens with the sentence that “The Department may do anything which appears to it to be conducive or incidental to the discharge of its general duty under section 1(1)". The first italicised word is considered too generic; the second is construed as being too subjective. To address these concerns the Department proposes to remove this sentence so that the clause simply states that to support its general duty under section 1(1) the Department may engage in all of the activities listed in section 7(2).

Control of animals in forests
Killing Deer or Hares in the Close Season

12. Section 8 allows the control of wild animals at any time, which includes the close season, to prevent actual damage to trees. This is a power which has attracted criticism from certain stakeholders and members of the Committee. Certain stakeholders and a member of the Committee have also raised welfare concerns, and questioned the need to include protected animals in the range of animals which may be killed.

13. To address these concerns, and both to narrow and focus the power as one to control deer and hare in the close season, the Department is proposing the following amendments:

Irish Hare

14. As the Committee is aware, the Minister has indicated that she wants the Irish Hare to be excluded from section 8 (and, it follows, section 9). The OLC will be asked to reflect this in the amendment.

Range of Animals

15. The definition of wild animals in section 8 is all embracing, and allows the Department and indeed all owners of woodland to kill at any time any wild animal damaging their trees - even wild animals protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife Order (animals such as red squirrel, badger, otter, bats etc). Following consideration of stakeholder and other wildlife concerns, the Department proposes that Schedule 5 protected animals be excluded.

Taking of animals

16. The Department is proposing that consideration be given to the listing of the range of controls in section 8(3) to make the taking of animals the first option - i.e. that the occupier may "take, kill or destroy “.

Protection for trees in woodlands grown for any purposes

17. As currently drafted, subsection 8(2) (a) only affords protection for trees on land in the Department’s forests and trees on other land being grown for timber. However, there are trees in privately and other publicly owned forests that have an environmental or social value and which should receive the same protection. The Department is proposing that this subsection be re-drafted to apply to any woodland of 0.2 hectares or more.

Control of animals on land adjacent to forest (section 9)

18. This clause has raised concerns both with stakeholders and the Committee, who have questioned the need for the Department to protect forests by entering private adjoining land to kill deer, hares etc and, furthermore, to then charge the landowner for any remedial action by the Department. The Department remains of the view that it should have such a power to protect a valuable public asset such as the Department’s forests, and indeed to ensure the protection of private woodlands; this will support wider forestry obligations and both the Department’s and the Committee’s desire for new woodland creation and the sustainable management of existing woodlands.

Charging of costs to woodland owner rather than owner of adjoining land

19. The Committee and stakeholders have been critical of the proposal to charge the adjoining landowner, who may have no woodland, for any controls exercised by the Department under section 9 (7) to protect woodland. In response to these concerns, the Department has decided that it ought to be the woodland owner, including the Department, who should carry the responsibility for managing their woodland and any associated costs. The Department is considering the structure of clause 9 in light of the proposed changes.

Removal or destruction of vegetation on adjoining uncultivated land Section 10)

20. Concerns have been expressed by stakeholders and the Committee about this proposed power, which is a carry-over from the 1953 Forestry Act. This provision is again designed to support wider forestry objectives and would be used sparingly, and only where the Department believes a real fire risk exists from fire-hazardous vegetation immediately adjacent to the forest. Fire damage constitutes a real threat to forests, often resulting in significant financial loss. However, we note the concerns and are considering further the specific circumstances in which we would use this power. Ultimately, our intention would always be to seek agreement with the landowner before reverting to the provisions in this clause.

Sections 14 to 29: Felling of trees
Felling licences (Part 3 of the Forestry Bill)
Application of felling requirements to Government departments

21. The Committee and some stakeholders have contended that the felling licence requirement should apply to the Department and other Government-owned forests, and those under the responsibility of District Councils. We have sought legal advice on this point. This supports the exemption given to the Department and other Government-owned forests, because in general, the Department is exercising a regulatory function and the principle normally followed is that Government Departments do not regulate one another; and indeed Government Departments do not need regulation because of their nature and the functions they perform.

22. Furthermore, in legal terms, Government Departments are Crown bodies and the Crown is, from a constitutional point of view, indivisible. That is to say one Government Department applying to another for a licence would be, in legal terms, equivalent to a person applying for a licence from himself. The same would apply in relation to enforcement action. Given this advice, we believe the current exemption for Government departments is justified and ought to be retained.

23. However, the Department is aware of the Committee’s concerns on this and we wish to assure it that the Department’s forests are subject to comprehensive management plans which far exceed those proposed for private forests. Furthermore, the Forest Service is managed to the UK Forestry Standard and the UK Woodland Assurance Standard, and this is subject to independent audit. The Department also intends, as the Forest authority, with a duty to promote sustainable forest management to promote the principles of felling and regeneration in relation to forests owned by other Government departments. District Councils are not excluded under the Bill, and felling regulations will apply to them.

Fees

24. The Committee and some stakeholders have questioned the Department’s intention to charge a felling licensing fee. The Department is considering this issue, including the principle of parity with GB and the South and will apprise the Committee of the outcome.

Ancient Woodlands
Presumption against felling licences for ancient woodland sites

25. The Committee and some stakeholders have argued that the Forestry Bill should contain a presumption against granting felling licences for the felling on sites of ancient woodlands. The Department recognises the need to protect ancient woodlands but maintains that from time to time there still needs to carry out felling and regeneration in ancient woodlands as part of their normal sustainable management (the Woodland Trust agreed at a meeting with the Department in December 2009 that this is the case). The management and protection of ancient woodland sites can be promoted within the proposed felling and regeneration licensing system.

Compensation

26. Some stakeholders have argued against the entitlement to compensation where loss is suffered due to timber deterioration as a result of the refusal of a felling licence (section 16). They maintain that there is something wrong in principle for suggesting that people should be compensated for what may be a significant personal financial loss. However, under Human Rights legislation the Department is obliged to offer scope for compensation where an individual is required to make sacrifices in the public interest.

27. We clarified this with the DSO recently, and were advised that the right to compensation must extend to any significant loss or sacrifice suffered as result of the imposition of a condition of a felling licence (not only for refusal of one as currently in the Bill). The Department will now have to ask the OLC to reflect this as an amendment in the Bill. This means that any condition imposed in a licence which may limit the potential to realise a financial return will trigger a potential compensation claim, and this may have significant budgetary implications for the Department.

28. This will have obvious implications for the Department’s use of stocking or restocking conditions, especially where there is a condition to restock with the less financially productive broadleaf species, particularly in the context of restoring ancient woodland sites. The Department is now considering if enhanced grant incentives should be used to incentivise the restoration of ancient woodland on plantation sites ancient woodland sites, rather than through felling licence conditions.

Advisory Body

29. The Committee and some stakeholders have called for the Bill to contain a duty to set up a stakeholder advisory body. The Department is considering this proposal.

Statutory Right of Access

30. Some stakeholders have expressed concern that this provision is tantamount to, or a precursor to, a “right to roam". The Department can assure the Committee that this right of pedestrian access will extend only to the Department’s forests, and that it will be circumscribed by bye-laws to ensure the proper management of the competing interests of all users.

DARD Briefing Papers for Meeting
of 1 February 2010

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for
Agriculture and Rural Development
Room 284
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast BT4 3XX

David Small
Forest Service
Dundonald House
Upper Newtownards Road
BELFAST
BT4 3SB
Phone: 02890 524480
Fax: 02890 524570
Email: david.small@dardni.gov.uk
www.forestserviceni.gov.uk

29 January 2010

Dear Paul

Forestry Bill – Proposed Amendments

Forest Service officials will be present at the Forestry Bill evidence session to be held on Monday 1 February 2010. The attached briefing paper sets out our further comments and proposed amendments to several key clauses of the Forestry Bill, in light of Committee and stakeholder concerns. Officials will present the paper and deal with questions from Committee members.

Yours sincerely

David Small sig
David Small
Chief Executive

CC: Mr Joe Cassells
Ms Shauna Mageean
Mr Mark O’Hare
Ms Diane McClean

If you have a hearing difficulty you can contact
The Department via the textphone on 028 9052 4420

An Roinn Talmhaíochta Forbartha Tuaithe
Månnystrie o Fairms an Kintra Fordèrin

Proposed Amendments following
Oral Evidence Session of 26 January 2010

Following the oral evidence session of 26 January, the Department has considered the sections discussed, and how the Forestry Bill may be re-drafted to accommodate the various concerns. In response, we now propose a number of amendments to the Bill which it is hoped, will satisfy concerns around the relevant clauses.

General Duty of the Department (section 1)

Climate Change

1. We have asked the OLC to redraft the clause to incorporate commitments to climate change, biodiversity and recreational use. We have received a re-drafted clause from the OLC, which is attached with this paper,

Recreational use/social benefits

2. Committee will note that the structure of clause 1 has been changed to give further clarity to the duties, but the principles remain the same. Subsection (2) is now drafted to reflect the social aspect of the general duty. The Department will have a duty to encourage the enjoyment and recreational use of its land by the public, and to promote the social benefits of other (private) forests.

3. This provides for the Department’s duty to encourage social benefits from all forests, including private forests. Committee is assured that this is not an obligation on the private owner, the obligation to promote social benefits lies with the Department. What is intended by the promotion of social benefits ranges from amenity and aesthetic benefits promoted by forest design, and the composition and harmony of tree cover: scenic aspects which we consider social forestry.

4. This is all part and parcel of sustainable forest management in the UK Forestry Standard, the ethos of which we wish to promote to private woodland owners. Under the Standard, woodland owners are encouraged to consider opening up their forests for public access and recreation, but are not compelled. We simply would encourage this as part of what we see is one of our duties under sustainable forestry.

Definition of “sustainable forestry".

5. The Committee has asked the Department to define clearly the meaning of “sustainable forestry". It enshrines the three strands of what is commonly recognised today as sustainable forestry – economic, environmental and social, all of which are part of the three core elements of the Department’s general duty in the three sub-sections of section 1. This concept of sustainable forestry is well established, and is central to the UK Forestry standard. In a wider sense the NI Sustainability Strategy is also based on the three same pillars- economic, environmental and social.

Compulsory acquisition of land (section 5)

6. In response to the Committee’s concerns around the broad nature of this power, we are reconsidering the clause.

Woodland Inventory (section 6)

7. The Committee was concerned at the meeting of 26 January that our proposed woodland inventory would be restricted to forest cover. We accept this point and will ask the OLC to produce a clause for an inventory that will include cover, location, size and type. We have indicated to the Committee that to capture further data including flora, fauna and timber quality would undoubtedly involve the Department in an inordinately lengthy and resource-intensive commitment. The Department would not want a statutory duty to go this far. In addition, the Department is confident that it has very comprehensive data on its own forests, and with access to data held by other organisations will be able to compile and maintain a comprehensive woodland inventory fit for purpose. We intend to include this as a Business Plan commitment for 2010.

8. Our proposal for clause 6 is that:

‘The Department will be required to:

(a) provide and maintain a register providing such information as the Department considers appropriate as to the location, size and type of woodlands in Northern Ireland;

(b) publish that register in such form and at such intervals as the Department thinks appropriate."

Restriction of Incidental Powers (section 7)

9. The Department has received a re-draft of this clause ( see Annex) . The opening sentence, with its wide-sweeping power “to do anything" has been removed. It will now simply read that the Department may engage in all the activities listed in section 7(2).

10. We would like to clarify that, as drafted, this power to enter into partnerships and to form or participate in bodies corporates supports the Department’s general duty in section 1(1) i.e. for forestry purposes as outlined in section 1(2)(a) and (b), be they timber production, environmental protection or recreational forestry as commonly and currently understood.

11. With reference to Tom Elliott’s query, we can confirm clause 4 proposes that the Department “may use or develop forestry land for a purpose other than forestry". This power supports the Department’s aim, contained in the Forestry Strategy, “to obtain best value from the Forest Service estate", and where prospective activities such as wind farms and the development of tourist facilities were given as examples.

12. Clause 4(2) of the Bill permits the Department to enter into partnerships to support projects to use forestry land for other purposes, but the Department has noticed an anomaly in that, unlike in clause 7, there is no scope for forming or participating in bodies co-operate for this purpose; and yet it is for such commercial initiatives that body corporate arrangements would be most useful and appropriate. For example, we are aware that the Forestry Commission has been involved in a body corporate arrangement with the private sector to attract investment and deliver a forest holiday business.

13. The Department has drawn this anomaly to the attention of the OLC and he has suggested some amalgamation of clauses 4 and 7 so that partnership and body corporate arrangements may support both the general duty of clause 1 and the other uses of forestry land in clause 4.

14. We hope that the Committee will find this proposal logical and reasonable, and in support of the Bill’s aims as articulated in the Forestry Strategy.

Killing Deer or Hares in the Close Season: Section 8

Killing “at any time"

15. The Department acknowledges the Committee’s concerns that as drafted the Bill will permit the culling of deer or hares at any time, including night-time killing, and so we have asked the OLC to re-draft the clause to remove this expression and to remove the associated protections against Article 19(2) of the Wildlife Order and section 7(A1)(b) of the Game Preservation Act (NI) 1928.

16. We indicated on 26 January that we also intend to seek other amendments to this clause, such as the removal of the Irish hare, and schedule 5 animals. If Committee is now content we intend to ask the OLC to produce a new clause.

Control of animals on land adjacent to forest (section 9)

17. As indicated to the Committee, the Department no longer proposes to impose costs on adjoining landowners for any action taken by the Department to cull wild animals on their land (under section 9(7) of the Bill. The Department is considering the structure of clause 9 in light of this.

18. The Department assures the Committee that there is scope within the existing clause (at section 9(5)) for the adjoining landowner to take his own effective steps; and that the Department can only enter the land to control the animals if the landowner does not comply with the notice that requests him to take these steps. We have indicated to the Committee that this power is intended only for the protection of woodlands and for no other purpose.

19. In response to the Committee’s suggestion, the Department is arranging to meet with BASC.

20. We are not aware of any other issues raised by the Committee around this clause. If Committee is now content we intend to ask the OLC to produce a new clause.

Removal or destruction of vegetation on adjoining uncultivated land Section 10)

21. The Department is aware of the Committee’s concerns around this clause and is considering it in light of appropriate circumstances in which we will use the power, heather management and fit with countryside management schemes, and the definition of “uncultivated land".

Felling licences (Part 3 of the Forestry Bill)

Fees

22. The Department notes the Committee’s concerns around the whole issue of fees and is considering carefully the waiving of these.

Felling Management Plan

23. The Department has provided (with this paper) a copy of a proposed felling management plan. The plan will of course be subject to subordinate legislation and further consultation with the Committee. However, the draft does convey a clear picture of the range of information that we propose to require of woodland owners. In addition it will be supplemented with appropriate guidance and advice notes.

Ancient Woodlands

Compensation and implications for setting conditions to restock ancient woodland sites

24. We have explained, in our pervious paper to the Committee our reservations about a presumption against granting felling licences for the felling on sites of ancient woodlands.

25. We have also explained that we have received legal advice that to comply with Human Rights legislation, compensation must extend to any significant loss or sacrifice suffered as result of the imposition of a condition of a felling licence (not only for refusal of one as currently in the Bill). This would have obvious implications if we were to receive a request, in respect of an ancient woodland site, for a felling licence in which it is proposed to grow conifers. In such a case a condition that the land be restocked with broadleaves would inevitably trigger a significant financial compensation claim, and indeed set a very costly precedent. We have taken very careful legal advice on this point and this is the legal position.

26. The Department proposes as an alternative to require the land to be restocked in line with good forestry practice, including the UK Forestry Standards on preserving ancient woodlands. This will require woodland owners to take account of ancient woodland features before making their decision on the restocking of their land. We will also explore other means of promoting the protection of ancient woodland sites, such as through grants, which already offer a higher level of incentive for broadleaf woodland. The Department will of course adhere to its own ancient woodland strategy in respect of its forests (a copy of which is attached).

Advisory Body

27. The Department has reservations about an advisory body unless there is added value in what they have to offer. We are of the view that existing arrangements, which allow engagement with specific stakeholders in relation to their area of interest work well. Existing arrangements have included a stakeholder forum for the development of the recreational strategy, one to discuss woodland expansion, and another in respect of native woodlands. We are not convinced that and that there is no real gain to be had in a separate body to deliver what is currently available.

Sample Felling Licence Application Form

Forest Service Ancient Woodland Inventory Woodland Management Strategy

1. Review of Forest Service plantations on ancient woodland sites (PAWS) restoration strategy

1.1 The Forest Service PAWS restoration strategy was produced in 2001. It is based on a number of planted sites shown as woodland or ‘underwood’ on the first and second editions of maps produced by the Ordnance Survey since 1830. Information from maps was correlated with other sources including the accompanying Memoirs, acquisition reports and site features to determine that the woodland was long-established (continuously wooded since at least 1830) and likely to be ancient (continuously wooded since 1600).

1.2 The strategy consists of documentation including maps, ecological survey reports, management plans and records of operations covering 30 sites with an area of 532ha. By 2007 clearfelling, selective felling and thinning operations linked to restoration have taken place on 9 sites.

1.3 Management objectives of PAWS identified in the strategy are mostly either timber production or biodiversity, depending on the location of the PAWS and the stage of the restoration project.

2. The Ancient Woodland Inventory

2.1 The Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI) was undertaken during 2003-7 by the Woodland Trust with support from Queens University. Results have been made available for use in conjunction with the Forest Service GIS, enabling cross-referencing of inventory data with Forest Service management information including management objectives, species, planting year and felling date. Additional site survey information is available from the AWI website www.backonthemap.org.uk.

2.2 The inventory includes a total of almost 10 000ha of woodland identified on maps, of which 6000ha is under broadleaved, conifer or mixed plantations. Half of this area is owned or managed by Forest Service, of which some 2700ha is under conifer or mixed plantations potentially in need of management intervention to protect remnant features of ancient woodland.

2.3 The Ancient Woodland Inventory does not include 3 sites that are in the Forest Service PAWS restoration strategy. This is due to differences in interpretation of evidence from maps and other sources.

3. Forest Service Ancient Woodland Inventory (AWI) Woodland Management Strategy

3.1 Forest Service AWI woodland that is not included in the PAWS Restoration Strategy will initially be managed in keeping with current management objectives, whether timber production, biodiversity or social use. However, planning of operations within AWI woodland will take account of the need to protect ancient woodland remnant features.

3.2 Management objectives of AWI woodland will be reviewed in conjunction with periodic reviews of forest plans on the basis of:

a) ecological potential of AWI woodland within the area subject to planning review, indicated by presence or absence of ancient woodland remnant features

b) forest redesign, in particular the location of watercourses and other areas managed for biodiversity in order to create or reinforce habitat networks.

3.3 Management objectives will reflect the importance for biodiversity, both in terms of the AWI woodland, and the adjacent forest and associated open space. Where timber production is the primary objective in an area where ancient woodland remnant features are present, the tree species composition will be gradually converted to conform with native woodland guidance using an alternative to clearfell.

DARD Briefing Papers for Meeting
of 8 February 2010

David Small
Forest Service
Dundonald House
Upper Newtownards Road
BELFAST
BT4 3SB
Phone: 02890 524480
Fax: 02890 524570
Email: david.small@dardni.gov.uk
www.forestserviceni.gov.uk

5 February 2010

Dear Paul

Forestry Bill – Proposed Amendments

Forest Service officials will be present at the Forestry Bill evidence session to be held on Monday 8 February 2010. The attached briefing paper sets out our further comments and proposed amendments to several key clauses of the Forestry Bill, in light of Committee and stakeholder concerns. Officials will present the paper and deal with questions from Committee members.

We shall clarify on Monday the position on the two proposed amendments of your letter of the 3 February.

Yours sincerely

David Small sig
David Small
Chief Executive

CC: Mr Joe Cassells
Ms Shauna Mageean
Mr Mark O’Hare
Mr Michael McCoy

If you have a hearing difficulty you can contact
The Department via the textphone on 028 9052 4420

An Roinn Talmhaíochta Forbartha Tuaithe
Månnystrie o Fairms an Kintra Fordèrin

Proposed Amendments following Oral Evidence Session of 1 February 2010

Following the oral evidence session of 1 February, the Department can now provide you with all the proposed amendments to clauses now cleared by the OLC at this date. We can also provide an update on those proposed amendments still under consideration.

General Duty of the Department (section 1)

1. This remains the same and was covered by our comments in our previous covering paper. We believe the revised clause now clearly addresses the comments from the Committee and stakeholders about the need for the clauses to deal with biodiversity, climate change, forest recreation and sustainable forestry issues.

Designation of strategies

2. We have serious reservations about the suggestion that we emulate section 2 of the Wildlife and Environment Bill with its provision to designate future strategies. It seems to us that the latter Bill contains such a clause because in its first clause it imposes a duty on every public body to further biodiversity and it may then designate any strategy coming forward from any public body. The need for the designation of a strategy is clear in this context. However, the Forestry Bill imposes no duty on any other public body.

3. Forest Service does of course develop and publish strategies in delivering its statutory duty. It consults and agrees these with the Committee, as well as through our Business Plan process. We can assure the Committee categorically that it will continue to do so in the case of all future strategies.

Use or development of forestry land (section 4)

4. In this clause, sub-sections (2) and (3) have been removed because they have been transferred to, and amalgamated with, the partnership arrangements under section 7. The rationale for this was explained in the previous paper to the Committee, and at the Oral Evidence session of 1 February.

Compulsory acquisition of land (section 5)

5. The OLC has re-drafted this clause to restrict its use to “providing or improving access to any land". We believe that this significantly reduces the scope of the provision to reflect the Committee’s concerns about the original wide-sweeping nature of the power in clause 5.

Statutory code of practice

6. In response to the Committee’s request, we asked the OLC to reflect in the Bill a prescribed duty to produce a code of practice for compulsory acquisition of land to clearly highlight the use of the power as a last resort. The OLC maintained that compulsory purchase procedures are already laid down by statute and practice; and given the complex and time-consuming nature of the procedures, there is a strong incentive for departments to enter voluntary arrangements with landowners. The OLC concluded that there was no point in providing for a statutory code, and that if so it would be the only such code, even though compulsory purchase powers are widely available to departments. The OLC also warned that the contents of any such code (even if restricted to forestry) could well have implications for other departments.

Administrative Guidelines on the use of compulsory acquisition power

7. The Department can assure the Committee that it intends to draw up internal guidelines for the use of any compulsory power of acquisition, and the clear requirement to exhaust all reasonable alternatives beforehand.

Temporary Acquisition by agreement of a right of way/wayleave

8. At the Committee’s request we asked the OLC to provide scope in the Bill for the temporary acquisition by agreement of a right of way/wayleave to facilitate access. The OLC advised that there is no need to provide a discrete clause for this, as the power to do this is already contained in clause 2(1)(a) of the Bill: “Acquire by agreement any land which it requires for the purposes of, or in connection with, the carrying out of any of its functions under this Act". The OLC pointed out that “land" in this context includes any interest or estate in or over land. The Department can assure the Committee that it will explore the option of temporary wayleaves/rights of way before any move to compulsorily acquire access.

Woodland Inventory (section 6)

9. The Department has considered and complied with the Committee’s request to prescribe the intervals for the publishing of a register. We decided that a 10 year interval was appropriate given that our target for woodland expansion is 50 years. This will provide a comprehensive picture at each decade. We are now agreeing the final wording of the clause with OLC.

Restriction of Incidental Powers (section 7)

10. As already indicated to the Committee, the Department has asked the OLC to redraft this clause to remove the opening sentence with its wide-sweeping power “to do anything". We also informed the Committee that we intended to amalgamate the powers to engage in partnerships or in bodies corporate to deliver the functions of sections 4 and 7. We are now agreeing the final wording of the clause with OLC.

Killing Deer or Hares in the Close Season (section 8)

11. The OLC has now produced a revised clause. This effectively:

removes the wording “at any time" so that deer or hare may not be killed at night; and the associated protections against Article 19(2) of the Wildlife Order and section 7(A1)(b) of the Game Preservation Act (NI) 1928 have also been removed as protections from section 11 of the Bill.
excludes the Irish hare
excludes Schedule 5 protected animals
extends the scope of the clause to protect all woodlands (not just those, as in the current section of the Bill, which are used for the commercial production of timber).

Control of animals on land adjacent to forest (section 9)

12. As indicated to the Committee, the Department no longer proposes to impose costs on adjoining landowners for any action taken by the Department to cull wild animals on their land (under section 9(7) of the Bill). However, we remain concerned about the future possibility of deer numbers increasing to a point where Forest Service, as the Forest Authority, may at some point need to intervene to control deer numbers for the benefit of both public and private woodlands. This could create a significant cost burden for the Department and we would wish to retain the discretion to enable cost recovery from woodland owners, whose interests need to be protected. Any use of such a discretionary provision would, of course, have to satisfy a public interest test and Human Rights obligations. We are seeking advice from the DSO on this matter.

Removal or destruction of vegetation on adjoining uncultivated land (section 10)

13. The Department is aware of the Committee’s concerns around this clause and is considering it in light of appropriate circumstances in which we will use the power, implications for heather management, fit with countryside management schemes, and the definition of “uncultivated land".

Protections for persons acting under section 8, 9 or 10

14. The OLC has produced a revised clause to remove the protection against the night time killing of hares or deer; and to remove the protection against the killing of any protected animals.

Felling licences (Part 3 of the Forestry Bill)

Fees

15. The Department notes the Committee’s concerns around the whole issue of fees and is considering carefully the waiving of these.

Advisory Body

16. The Department is not persuaded that the establishment of an advisory body is necessary. We are of the view that existing arrangements, which allow engagement with specific stakeholders in relation to their area of interest work well. Existing arrangements have included a stakeholder forum for the development of the recreational strategy, one to discuss woodland expansion, and another in respect of native woodlands. We are not convinced that there is any real gain in a separate body to deliver what is currently available.

DARD Briefing Papers for Meeting
of 15 February 2010

David Small
Forest Service
Dundonald House
Upper Newtownards Road
BELFAST
BT4 3SB
Phone: 02890 524480
Fax: 02890 524570
Email: david.small@dardni.gov.uk
www.forestserviceni.gov.uk

12 February 2010

Dear Paul

Forestry Bill – Proposed Amendments

Forest Service officials will be present at the Forestry Bill evidence session to be held on Monday 15 February 2010. The attached briefing paper sets out our further comments and proposed amendments to several key clauses of the Forestry Bill, in light of Committee and stakeholder concerns. Officials will present the paper and deal with questions from Committee members.

Yours sincerely

David Small sig
David Small
Chief Executive

CC: Mr Joe Cassells
Ms Shauna Mageean
Mr Mark O’Hare
Mr Michael McCoy

If you have a hearing difficulty you can contact
The Department via the textphone on 028 9052 4420

An Roinn Talmhaíochta Forbartha Tuaithe
Månnystrie o Fairms an Kintra Fordèrin

Proposed Amendments following Oral Evidence Session of 8 February 2010

Following the oral evidence session of 8 February, the Department can now provide you with all the proposed amendments to clauses now cleared by the OLC at this date. We can also provide an update on those proposed amendments still under consideration.

General Duty of the Department (section 1)

1. We have considered the proposal that we amend clause 1(1A)(a) to bring out more a duty to develop forestry land for recreational purposes. We indicated to the Committee that we had reservations about going this far, and that such a direction would have serious implications for our budget. However, we fully intend to facilitate the development of forestry land, and have since asked the OLC to reflect this in the draft clause. The latest draft now reads “in such a way as to promote and encourage the enjoyment and recreational use of that land by the public". The word “promote" in this context means “to advance or move forward".

2. The RSPB, and subsequently the Woodland Trust, have proposed that clause 1(2) (b)(1) be amended with the word “enhancement" i.e. “contribute to the protection and enhancement of the environment". We have concerns about the implications of such an amendment for future forestry management. Our legal advice is that, in some circumstances, particularly in the case of upland forests, such a requirement would place us under great pressure to remove those forests in favour of alternative habitats. This would clearly conflict with our general duty in clause 1 to promote forest expansion and to retain adequate reserves of growing trees.

Designation of strategies

3. We continue to have concerns about designating future strategies, and are not convinced of any advantage in doing so, given the good established practice already in place, which has worked well with the Committee. However, we are still considering this matter.

Compulsory acquisition of land (section 5)

Statutory code of practice

4. The Committee has asked us to reflect in the Bill a prescribed duty to produce a code of practice for compulsory acquisition of land. We explained the OLC’s reservations about this, and continue to have serious concerns regarding the implications of a statutory code. There is no statutory code elsewhere to guide compulsory acquisition powers. Furthermore, as the power is absolutely one of last resort, it compels the exploration of every reasonable alternative. Should the Committee remain unconvinced by this assertion, we would contend that this Department is not the appropriate one to draft such a code; and that other Departments, such as DRD, which use compulsory acquisition powers as a matter of course, and would be affected by any precedent emerging from a code, would likely wish to take the lead; and would have the necessary expertise to do so.

5. I have attached a paper outlining the steps, not readily discernible in the schedule, for the use of compulsory acquisition powers. These may give the Committee further assurance.

Temporary Acquisition by agreement of a right of way/wayleave

6. At the Committee’s request we asked the OLC again to provide scope in the Bill for the temporary acquisition by agreement of a right of way/wayleave to facilitate access. The OLC advised that there is no need to provide a discrete clause for this, as the power to do this is already contained in clause 2(1)(a) of the Bill: “Acquire by agreement any land which it requires for the purposes of, or in connection with, the carrying out of any of its functions under this Act". The OLC pointed out that “land" in this context includes any interest or estate in or over land. Similarly, OLC has confirmed that the Bill as drafted would enable temporary arrangements to be pursued. The Department can assure the Committee that it will explore the option of temporary wayleaves/rights of way before any move to compulsorily acquire access.

Woodland Inventory (section 6)

7. We have considered the Committee’s comments on this clause and the suggestion of a shorter review period – less than the 10 year review proposed in the amendment to the clause.

8. We believe that review every 10 years is appropriate and would provide the desired indication of trends in total woodland cover. It would allow 5 such reviews as we move towards our 50 year aim of doubling forest cover. Any review over a shorter period would show no significant difference in the long-term trend. Another issue is that the other data sets we will be relying on, are unlikely to be reviewed over shorter periods.

9. Our key efforts to expand forest cover will continue to be through the Department’s Woodland Grant Scheme and we will be reviewing this important data every year. The formal 10 year review will fill in any gaps, but will be resource intensive and we would not support more frequent reviews without any obvious additional benefit. More frequent review would require limited resources to be diverted away from other important work, for example, our forest expansion efforts.

10. Given all of this, our strong preference is for a 10 year review commitment.

Control of animals on land adjacent to forest (section 9)

11. The Committee asked us to consider dropping this clause from the Bill. We have serious reservations about this as it is an important provision to protect woodland, and thereby to support our general duty to promote sustainable forestry. We acknowledge that there is not currently a serious problem, however, the creation of new woodland and forest expansion will create new habitats within which deer numbers could well increase. It is therefore an important measure to deal with such a scenario in the future.

12. We assure the Committee that the power would be used with the least level of intrusion, in a minimalistic manner, while always providing the scope which exists in the clause for the landowner to address the problem in any way he prefers. We believe that this discretionary power will be used rarely, and must only be used where the action is proportionate, reasonable and in line with the Human Rights Act. It is not, by any means, an unfettered power, and is circumscribed by significant protections.

13. Forest Service had a useful meeting with the British Deer Society on Thursday 11 February and discussed a range of issues including deer and biodiversity, monitoring deer numbers, the development of deer management plans and recreational deer stalking. We agreed with BDS that prior to any action by the Department to cull deer on land adjacent to forest, referred to in Section 9 of the Bill, we would wish to consult with local deer management groups, such as the one which already exist at Tollymore, to allow them to implement effective deer management across multiple landholdings. Only in the event that this would prove to be unsuccessful in managing deer numbers would we consider the powers open to us under Section 9. BDS were content with this approach.

14. We have informed the Committee that we have accepted its views on imposing costs on adjoining landowners, and this is reflected in the clause. We do however wish to retain discretion in the clause to enable us to recover costs from landowners who derive benefit from any intervention by the Department on their behalf. However, to reiterate, the power would have to be used in a reasonable and proportionate way, and meet the obligations of the Human Rights Act. An amendment to clause 9 is attached.

Removal or destruction of vegetation on adjoining uncultivated land (section 10)

15. We are still considering a possible amendment to this clause

Protections for persons acting under section 8, 9 or 10

16. The Committee asked for an explanation of the protections. We will provide in the coming week the chairperson with a paper relating to this.

Felling licences (Part 3 of the Forestry Bill)

Fees

17. The Department notes the Committee’s concerns around the whole issue of fees and is considering carefully the waiving of these.

Clause 17 (4)

18. The Committee and Woodland Trust have indicated a preference to have a clear reference in the Bill to the need to protect Ancient Woodland of high biodiversity value. We are considering a possible amendment to the Clause to include an appropriate reference. This will require a definition of Ancient Woodland to be included in the Bill.

Advisory Body

19. The Department is not persuaded that the establishment of an advisory body is necessary. We are of the view that existing arrangements, which allow engagement with specific stakeholders in relation to their area of interest work well. Existing arrangements have included a stakeholder forum for the development of the recreational strategy, one to discuss woodland expansion, and another in respect of native woodlands. We remain unconvinced that there is any real gain in a separate body to deliver what is currently available.

Steps for use of Compulsory Acquisition Powers

Clause 5 – Compulsory acquisition of land

Schedule 6 to the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 applies for the acquisition of land by vesting order.

Steps to be taken

1. The Department gives notice of intention

Where the Department proposes to acquire land compulsorily it must give notice of its intentions. The notice must:

be published locally, at least twice
be served on every person who has an interest in the land, including government departments and public bodies.

2. The Department considers representations and arranges for a local enquiry.

The Department considers all representations made to the Minister by an interested party.
At the same time, the Department arranges for the planning appeals commission or other person to hold a local inquiry. The local inquiry is to involve the Department and any person with an interest in the land, who may appear in person, or through a representative.

3. The planning appeals commission makes a report.

The planning appeals commission will make a report, which the Department considers before a vesting order is made.

4. The Department makes the vesting order.

One month from the date of the last publication of the notice, and after considering all the representations and the local inquiry, the Department may make a vesting order. The order may contain modifications. The Department may also refuse to make an order.

5. The Department publishes a notice that the vesting order is made.

As soon as possible after the vesting order is made, the Department publishes a notice giving details and advising where a copy may be seen.
A copy is also given to anyone who appeared at a local inquiry in support of his or her objection.

6. The validity of the vesting order may be questioned.

Within one month of publication, a person may question the validity of the vesting order to the High Court, on the grounds that it is not within the powers conferred under the Act or that procedures have not been complied with.
The High Court may suspend the operation of the vesting order, quash the vesting order or dismiss the application.

7. The vesting order becomes operative.

One month from publication of the notice, the vesting order becomes operative.

8. The Department serves notice that the vesting order is operative.

As soon as possible after the vesting order becomes operative, the Department serves on each interested party either a copy of the vesting order, or a notice stating that the vesting order has become operative and letting them know where a copy may be seen.
The Department also serves the notice on government departments and public bodies as it sees fit.

9. Disputed Compensation is referred to the Lands Tribunal.

As soon as a vesting order becomes operative, any question of disputed compensation is referred to the Lands Tribunal.

The Department delivers all details of disputed compensation cases, including maps of the area involved, to the Lands Tribunal.
The Department publishes a notice that the documents have been delivered.

DARD Briefing Papers for Meeting
of 22 February 2010

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for
Agriculture and Rural Development
Room 284
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast BT4 3XX

David Small
Forest Service
Dundonald House
Upper Newtownards Road
BELFAST
BT4 3SB
Phone: 02890 524480
Fax: 02890 524570
Email: david.small@dardni.gov.uk
www.forestserviceni.gov.uk

19 February 2010

Dear Paul

Forestry Bill – Proposed Amendments

Forest Service officials will be present at the Forestry Bill evidence session to be held on Monday 22 February 2010. The attached briefing paper sets out our further comments and proposed amendments to several key clauses of the Forestry Bill, in light of Committee and stakeholder concerns. Officials will present the paper and deal with questions from Committee members.

Yours sincerely

David Small sig
David Small
Chief Executive

CC: Mr Joe Cassells
Ms Shauna Mageean
Mr Mark O’Hare
Mr Michael McCoy

Proposed Amendments following Oral Evidence Session of 15 February 2010

Following the oral evidence session of 15 February, the Department can now provide you with all the proposed amendments to clauses now cleared by the OLC at this date. We can also provide an update on those proposed amendments still under consideration. We have tracked the proposed amendments, but time has not allowed us a final check to ensure they have been transcribed to full accuracy.

Delivery Plan

1. We agree to commit to produce a delivery plan in respect of the general duty in clause 1 of the Bill. We will ask the Minister to make a clear commitment to this in her speech at consideration stage.

Compulsory acquisition of land (section 5)

2. The Committee remains concerned about this clause. One of the main concerns is that the Department should seek in all circumstances to acquire or lease land, or an interest in the land (ie right of way), through negotiation and by agreement with landowners. We have confirmed that this will always be our first option – clause 2 in the Bill provides provisions to enable this approach.

3. The proposed compulsory acquisition provisions under clause 5 would only ever be contemplated where efforts to secure agreement with a landowner had failed and where there was a real need and clear public interest involved and where no other options existed (for example, gaining access through our own land). Even then, the powers would be used in a way that sought to minimise the extent of intervention – for example, by securing only the minimum level of interest required – this could be a compulsory right of way or a temporary access arrangement. Full compulsory purchase would only be used where that was the only option that met our needs. This approach will be absolutely vital at all times, if the use of clause 5 provisions is being considered.

4. To support the scope for a compulsory temporary arrangement, and to make it categorically clear, we asked the OLC to prescribe explicitly in the Bill that there is scope for compulsory acquisition on a temporary basis. This amendment is contained in clause 5 and allows for the compulsory acquisition of an easement or right over land for a limited period.

5. The Committee will also be assured by the significant protections that are inherent in the compulsory purchase process – these include its use as last resort; the recourse to public inquiry; compensation provisions etc. Importantly, the Committee will be aware of other important protections available under existing domestic legislation, for example the principle of “Wednesbury Reasonableness" and Judicial Review, and the additional protections available under Human Rights Legislation which require the Department to act always in a reasonable and proportionate way and to adopt the approach of least interference to the landowner. These protections mean that our first consideration will and must always be through agreement where that is possible.

6. The Committee can take further assurance from the fact that the powers will only be used with Ministerial approval.

7. Whilst we fully understand the Committees concerns, we believe it is important that we retain this discretionary and heavily fettered provision. There will be circumstances where it is simply not possible to secure agreement with a landowner – where there are multiple owners; where land is in probate; or where negotiations simply break down. In these circumstances, significant public investment will be lost. We will be unable to fell sites and carry out restocking, and this will make it impossible to meet our sustainable forestry obligations and duties under the Bill. It is to cover for such a scenario that the primary forestry legislation for England, Scotland and Wales, and the South, all contain compulsory acquisition powers. For these reasons, we are asking the Committee to agree the clause, taking note of the very significant protections in place.

Control of animals on land adjacent to forest (section 9)

8. The Committee has asked us to reserve this clause, proposing the option of enabling the clause (by subordinate legislation, or the appropriate legal trigger) at some future time when deer populations are posing a greater threat than at present. We have agreed to this amendment and clause 9 is now retained in the Bill in dormant form. Clause 38 contains an amendment which provides for it or any of its provisions, if ever required, to be activated, but only if laid before the Assembly.

9. At the same time, as we indicated to the Committee at the last session, we are duty bound to protect woodlands as part of our general duty to sustainability, and do not wish to be left powerless. We explained that the freezing of the clause will pose a real difficulty, because clause 9 does of course apply to other wild animals, such as rabbits and hare, which are an on-going menace to woodlands; and indeed we will still be left with on-going depredation by deer, but perhaps not on a present scale to justify powers to enter adjoining land under present clause 9(7).

10. We therefore are proposing the removal of the contentious element of compulsion from clause 9 and to rely instead on consent from the owner of any adjoining land for the control of animals damaging woodlands. We had always intended to first seek consent anyway, as the preliminary part of the present power, and there was always the possibility that that the owner of adjoining land would not object if the Department were to intervene against deer, rabbit or hare which may well be damaging his crops also. Such a consensual approach would also allow us to fulfil our policy of protecting woodland by intervening to deal with deer or other threat emanating from adjoining land.

11. The Committee will see that after clause 8 another clause now follows, entitled “Control with permission of occupier of animals on land adjacent to forest". This clause reflects a totally consensual approach, requesting the occupier of adjoining land to take effective steps to prevent the damage to adjoining woodland; however, failing this the Department may request permission to control the animals, but has no power to enter without that permission. The Committee will also note that this clause contains no power to impose any costs on the adjoining landowner, even if, on agreement, the Department controls any animals on his land.

12. Finally, to reiterate the Department must retain some ability to protect woodlands from damage by wild animals, and indeed primary forestry legislation for England, Scotland and Wales, and the South, contain such powers, including the right to enter adjoining land for those purposes. However, the Department will take a consensual approach in recognition of concerns.

Removal or destruction of vegetation on adjoining uncultivated land (section 10)

13. The Department has provided an amendment to this clause which now contains a new subsection to allow the scope and flexibility for other measures than removal or destruction of vegetation. We had asked the OLC to provide a caveat for those who are committed to agri-environment schemes and whose grant may be compromised by any clause 10 actions. The OLC was of the view that it would be unreasonable for the Department to seek to claw back grant on the grounds that a landowner had done something required by the Department under statutory powers, and that nothing express will be needed to that effect. The Department can also confirm that the principle of force majeure applies to these schemes and this will also offer protection in these circumstances.

Protections for persons acting under section 8, 9 or 10

14. We attach a paper which clearly explains the nature of the protections in this clause.

Felling licences (Part 3 of the Forestry Bill)

Fees

15. In recognition of the Committee’s concerns, the Department has agreed to waive the charging of fees for felling licences. However, while we may be able to justify the waiver for now, on public interest grounds, this may not always be the case, and, of course, cost recovery is both Executive and Departmental policy. We would therefore not wish to close the door on this power to recover fees by removing the clause entirely. We have therefore decided to retain the clause, but, given the Committee’s concerns, have amended it to give the further assurance that the prescribing of fees may only be instigated through agreement by the Assembly, and affirmative resolution. This amendment is reflected in clause 34, with a new reference to section 20.

Ancient Woodland

16. The Committee and Woodland Trust have indicated a preference to have a clear reference in the Bill to the need to protect ancient woodland. We have now reflected this in an amendment to clause 17 which states that: “In determining the felling management plan for any land which consists of, or includes, ancient woodland, the Department shall have regard to the desirability of maintaining the special character of that woodland". ’ The OLC concluded that no definition of ancient woodland is required.

Protection for persons acting under Clause 11 of the Forestry Bill

Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928 - Sections 7(1)(a) and 7A (1)(a)

Section 7(1)(a) forbids the culling of hares in their close season, and Sections 7(A)(1)(a) forbids their culling on Sundays. Woodland owners and authorised persons will be protected against this prohibition where they act under clauses 8 and 9 of the Forestry Bill. In both instances, killing of the Irish hare will not be allowed.

Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 - Articles 19(1) and 19(4)

Article 19(1) forbids the killing of fallow, sika and red deer in the close season. However Article 20(6) of the Wildlife Order provides protection, without the requirement of a licence, from Article 19(1) if deer are causing, or have caused, serious damage to growing timber, woodland, crops pasture, vegetables, fruit, and are likely to cause further damage. Therefore dispensations are in place for farmers and growers, and not just woodland owners, and the Forestry Bill’s dispensation to protect woodlands is in consonance with this.

Article 19(4) forbids the taking and removing of live deer, their marking or tagging, or their transportation other than inside an aircraft. Woodland owners and authorised persons will be protected against this prohibition where they act under clauses 8 and 9 of the Forestry Bill.

Game Preservation Act (Northern Ireland) 1928 - Sections 7B and 7E

Section 7B prohibits the taking, destruction or molestation of the nests or eggs of game birds. Section 7E prohibits the burning or destruction from 15 April to the 31 August of cover for game birds. Occupiers of land and authorised persons will be protected against this prohibition where they remove or destroy vegetation under clause 10 of the Forestry Bill.

Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 - Articles 10(4) and 14

Article 10(4) prohibits the damaging, destruction, or obstruction of the shelter or protective place of any wild animal protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife Order.

Article 14 prohibits the picking, uprooting, removal or destruction of wild plants protected under Schedule 8 of the Wildlife Order.

Occupiers of land and authorised persons will be protected against this prohibition where they remove or destroy vegetation under clause 10 of the Forestry Bill.

Game licences and firearm licences

Section 11 (5) of the Bill recognises that law on game licences and firearm licences will apply, and there is no exemption from them under the Forestry Bill.

The Miscellaneous Transferred Excise Duties Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 prohibits the killing or taking of game without a game licence, but proposed amendments in the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill include one to abolish the requirement for a licence.

The Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 makes it an offence to possess, purchase or acquire any handgun or other firearm without holding, or being authorised by, a firearm certificate. The Forestry Bill has no exemption for this.

The Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 makes it an offence for a person to enter on any land as a trespasser with a firearm, unless he shows that he has lawful authority or reasonable excuse for doing so. Authorised persons who enter land to control wild animals will do so under the authority of the Forestry Bill.

Appendix 5 Memoranda and
Papers – Others

1. Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development public consultation notice

2. Correspondence from Clerk to Committee to DARD (22 October 2009)

3. Correspondence from Clerk to Committee to DARD (27 January 2010)

4. Correspondence from Clerk to Committee to DARD (3 February 2010)

5. Correspondence from British Deer Society to DARD (16 February 2010)

Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development public consultation notice

NI Assembly logo

Committee For Agriculture And Rural Development

Draft Forestry Bill

The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development wish to receive comments on the proposed Forestry Bill.

A draft copy of the proposed Forestry Bill has been drawn up by Department of Agriculture and Rural Development – this can be accessed at:

http://archive.niassembly.gov.uk/legislation/primary/2008/nia11_08.htm

Any organisation or individual with an interest in this matter is invited to submit comments to the Committee, preferably by e-mail at the address below, listed above.

Submissions should be received no later than 5pm Friday 30 October 2009.

The Clerk to the Committee, Room 284, Parliament Buildings, Stormont, Belfast BT4 3XX.

Tel: 028 9052 1063

E-mail: committee.agriculture@niassembly.gov.uk

Correspondence from Clerk to Committee to DARD

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for
Agriculture and Rural Development
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX

Joe Cassells
Departmental Assembly Liaison Officer
Department of Agriculture and
Rural Development
Room 509
Dundonald House
Belfast
BT4 3SB

22 October 2009

Dear Joe

Forestry Bill

I refer to the above.

I have attached an issues sheet detailing the concerns of organisations that responded to the Forest Service consultation in 2008 and would appreciate if colleagues in the Forest Service Bill Team could indicate the Departments position in respect of each. This also contains the main issues arising out of the oral evidence session held on 3 November 2009.

I would appreciate a response by noon, Thursday 12 November 2009.

I am happy to discuss.

Yours sincerely

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for
Agriculture and Rural Development

Committee Stage of the Forestry Bill

Consideration of Bill Clauses – Master Document

Correspondence from Clerk to Committee to DARD

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for
Agriculture and Rural Development
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX

David Small
Chief Executive
Forest Service
Room 35
Dundonald House
Belfast
BT4 3SB

27 January 2010

Dear David

Committee Stage of the Forestry Bill – 26 January 2010

I refer to the above meeting.

Please find attached a synopsis of comments made during the Committee Stage of the Forestry Bill. As you will be aware, the Forest Service Bill Team are due to present on this matter again on 1 February 2010 and I would appreciate if comments on the attached could be provided in advance of this.

I am happy to discuss.

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for
Agriculture and Rural Development

Cc: Joe Cassells, DALO

Committee Stage of the Forestry Bill

Consideration of Bill Clauses – Master Document

Correspondence from Clerk to Committee to DARD

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for
Agriculture and Rural Development
Parliament Buildings
Stormont
Belfast
BT4 3XX

David Small
Chief Executive
Forest Service
Dundonald House
Belfast
BT4 3SB

3 February 2010

Dear David

Committee Meeting – 1 February 2010

I refer to the above meeting.

In consideration of the clause by clause scrutiny of the proposed Forestry Bill, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development would like to propose some further amendments for your consideration.

In light of comments from stakeholders concerned with the processes and timeframes around the application for and granting of felling licences, the Committee would request that Forest Service consider drawing up a Forestry Charter which would clearly define the service which any applicant can expect from Forest Service and would set out the time line of actions from the point of application through to the granting (or refusal) of a felling licence.

The Committee also requests that Forest Service seek further legal clarification on the issue of payment of compensation in cases where a felling licence has been refused. Forest Service has previously asserted that EU Human Rights legislation requires payment of compensation, however this does not appear to be the practice in England, Scotland and Wales. The Committee would, therefore, seek further clarification on this issue.

I am happy to discuss.

Paul Carlisle
Clerk to the Committee for
Agriculture and Rural Development

CC: Joe Cassells, DALO

Correspondence from British Deer Society to DARD

Appendix 6 List of Witnesses

Mr Roger Pollen, British Association for Shooting and Conservation

Mr Brendan Friel, Confederation of Forest Industries
Mr Stuart Goodall, Confederation of Forest Industries
Lord Jamie Hamilton, Confederation of Forest Industries
Mr Rupert Pigott, Confederation of Forest Industries

Mr Peter Archdale, Council for Nature, Conservation and the Countryside
Mr Patrick Casement, Council for Nature, Conservation and the Countryside

Dr. Caro-lynne Ferris, Countryside Access and Activities Network
Mr Brian Murphy, Countryside Access and Activities Network
Mr Dawson Stelfox, Countryside Access and Activities Network

Mr David Small, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
Mr Stuart Morwood, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
Mr Michael McCann, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
Mr John Joe O’Boyle, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

Dr. Kathleen McKenna, Farm Woodlands Ltd.
Mr Willie McKenna Farm, Woodlands Ltd.

Professor Sue Christie, Northern Ireland Environment Link

Mr John Hetherington, Premier Woodlands Ltd.

Mr John Martin, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds NI
Mr Mike Wood, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds NI

Mr Nick Harkness, Sport Northern Ireland
Mr Mike McClure, Sport Northern Ireland
Mr John News, Sport Northern Ireland

Mr Wesley Aston, Ulster Farmers’ Union
Mr Gregg Shannon, Ulster Farmers’ Union

Dr Lucinda Blakiston-Houston, Ulster Wildlife Trust
Dr Hilary Kirkpatrick, Ulster Wildlife Trust

Mr Lee Bruce, Woodland Trust
Mr Patrick Cregg, Woodland Trust

Mr Geoff Nuttall, World Wildlife Fund

Session 2009/10

Third Report

Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development

Report on the Forestry Bill

Powers and Membership

Powers

Membership

Table of Contents

Powers and Membership

Executive Summary

Recommendations

Introduction

Summary of the Draft Forestry Bill as presented to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Committee stage

Summary of Consideration and Agreed Amendments

Clause by Clause Scrutiny of the Bill

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Appendix 3

Appendix 4

Appendix 5

Appendix 6

Executive Summary

Purpose

Principles of the Bill

Key Issues

Compulsory Acquisition

Woodland Inventory

Powers to enter private land to control animals or vegetation

Fees for felling licences

Recommendations

Introduction

Summary of the Draft Forestry Bill as Presented to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Committee Stage

Part One: Functions of the Department

Clause 1 – General duty of the Department

Clause 2 – Principal powers of the Department

Clause 3 - Provision of facilities on forestry land

Clause 4 - Use or development of forestry land

Clause 5 - Compulsory acquisition of land

Clause 6 - Inquiries, information, etc

Clause 7 – Incidental Powers

Part Two: Protection of Forest Trees from Damage

Clause 8 – Control of Animals in Forests

Clause 9 - Control of animals on land adjacent to forests

Clause 10 - Removal or destruction of vegetation on adjoining land

Clause 11 - Protection for persons acting under section 8, 9 or 10

Clause 12 - Burning of vegetation

Clause 13 - Protection of forest trees, etc from pests

Part Three: Felling of Trees

Clause 14 - Requirement of licence for felling

Clause 15 - Application for felling licence

Clause 16 - Compensation on refusal of felling licence

Clause 17 - Operation and conditions of felling licence

Clause 18 - Deferred decision on an application for felling licence

Clause 19 – Appeal against decision of Department on application for felling licence

Clause 22 – Appeal against restocking notice

Clause 24 – Appeal against enforcement notice

Clause 20 - Fees in connection with felling licences

Clause 25 - Appeals under this Part

Clause 26 – Identification of trees

Clause 27 – Regulations as to applications, claims and notices

Clause 28 – Application of this part to Crown land

Clause 29 – Interpretation of this Part

Part Four: Miscellaneous and Supplementary

Clause 30 - Public right of access to, and byelaws for, forestry land

Clause 31 – Powers of entry

Clause 32 – Obstruction of officers, etc

Clause 33 – Prosecutions under this Act

Schedule 1 – Compulsory acquisition of land

Schedule 2 - Repeals

Summary of Consideration and Agreed Amendments

Clause 1 – General Duty of the Department

Clause 5 – Compulsory Acquisition of Land

Clause 6 – Inquiries, information etc.

Clause 8 – Control of animals in forests

Clause 9 – Control of animals on land adjacent to forests

Additional clause - Control (with permission of occupier) of animals on land adjacent to forest

Clause 10 – Removal or destruction of vegetation on adjoining land

Clause 15 – Application for felling licence

Clause 17 - Operation and conditions of felling licence

Clause 20 – Fees in connection with felling licences

Report on
the Forestry Bill

Tuesday 22 September 2009
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Room 30, Parliament Buildings