Forestry
The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3541, in the name of Allan Wilson, on forestry in Scotland, and on two amendments to that motion. I call Allan Wilson to speak, after he has shuffled his papers and sorted out his folders.
Thank you for your patience, Presiding Officer.
We have made several announcements about forestry in recent weeks, so the debate is timely. Forestry is important to Scotland, although perhaps it is not as important as the Conservatives' amendment suggests. One sixth of our land is wooded. Forestry and primary wood processing provide jobs for about 10,000 of our fellow citizens, and every year about 2 million Scots visit a wood or forest as part of a recreational trip.
The industry contributes about £800 million to the Scottish economy, so it accounts for about 0.5 per cent of our gross domestic product. It is not our third biggest industry, as the Conservatives suggest, but its importance is proportionally much greater in rural areas. There is no doubt that we need a thriving forestry industry to promote the economic well-being of our rural areas. Well-designed woods and forests also make a valuable contribution to our environment by creating habitats for wildlife and enhancing our landscape.
The overarching principle of our Scottish forestry strategy, which was published two years ago in November 2000, is sustainability. Scottish forestry must contribute positively to sustainable development and meet internationally recognised standards of sustainable forest management. The other guiding principles are integration, creating positive value, community support and reflecting the rich diversity and local distinctiveness of different parts of Scotland.
The strategy identified five key directions for the industry. The industry should maximise the value to the Scottish economy of our wood resource, which will become available for harvesting in the next 20 years, when we expect production to double. It should create a diverse high-quality forest resource for the future. It should also ensure that forestry contributes positively to our environment, creates opportunities for more people to enjoy our trees, woods and forests and helps communities to benefit from woods and forests. The strategy also identified 23 priorities for action. At a Scottish forestry forum meeting later this month, we will publish a progress report on the implementation of our strategy.
Forestry is a devolved matter, but it was agreed at the time of devolution that the Forestry Commission should continue to deliver forestry policy. The commission became a cross-border public authority with its head office in Edinburgh. Three national offices were established, along with a Great Britain central core. Following a recent review, we agreed with ministerial colleagues in other Administrations that functions should shift significantly away from the centre to strengthened national offices for Scotland, England and Wales.
The national office for Scotland will act as the Scottish Executive's forestry department and be responsible for managing Scotland's national forests through a separate Forest Enterprise in Scotland. That will give us closer control over how our national forests are managed and ensure greater integration between forestry policy and wider Scottish Executive policies.
Could some of the headquarters jobs in Edinburgh be moved to another part of Scotland, where they might be nearer the trees?
That is a fair point. I support the dispersal of civil service and Scottish Executive jobs. I understand that those jobs and their prospective dispersal will be the subject of review.
We will continue to work closely with Administrations south of the border on some issues. For example, forest research will continue to be funded directly from Whitehall, although the Scottish ministers, through the national office for Scotland, will have considerable influence over how research funding is spent.
Will the minister assure me that the northern research station that is situated near the Bush estate in Midlothian will be safe?
I will look into the research station's safety and answer the member's question in due course.
A ministerial committee is being established to bring together the ministers with responsibility for forestry in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That committee will meet regularly to oversee the new arrangements, to discuss the handling of international issues and to agree on any other cross-cutting forestry issues on which collaboration is advantageous. I am developing a concordat between the Forestry Commission and the Executive to spell out how those arrangements will work in practice. The main changes will be implemented by April next year.
We have conducted a major review of the forestry and woodland grant schemes to ensure that the grants are properly aligned with the Scottish forestry strategy's priorities. Subject to European Community approval, we plan to launch the Scottish forestry grants scheme in April next year. The new grant scheme was developed by a steering group that included representatives from the industry, farming and crofting interests, environment groups, local authorities, the Forestry Commission's national office for Scotland and the Scottish Executive's environment and rural affairs department.
A key recommendation of the group was that the use of our forestry grants should switch emphasis. At present, about three quarters of the money is allocated to forestry expansion and a quarter is for work to improve the environmental, social and economic value of existing forests. We intend to shift that balance significantly so that half the money will be used to improve existing forests and half will be used to fund new woodlands.
One feature of the new grant scheme will be better targeting of money for new woodlands. In September, I announced a £1.85 million package of locational premiums for central Scotland, Ayrshire, Grampian and the northern isles. I asked for details to be worked out through local consultation and I am happy to announce that Grampian forest forum has agreed that the locational premium for Grampian forest should be £1,500 per hectare. That sum will be available to farmers who want to diversify into forestry to create well-designed, productive woodlands of 10 to 30 hectares on their land. Overall, we are making provision of £26 million for forestry and woodland grants next year. That should be compared with our highest-ever expenditure on grants, which was £25 million in 2000-01.
We established the Scottish forest industries cluster to help continue the development of a strong forestry industry and to search for innovation in products and markets. The cluster is a partnership between Scottish Enterprise and the industry. Its key achievements include establishing a centre for timber engineering and developing stronger links between the wood-processing industry and wood users, including architects and people who specify buildings for procurement.
Wood processing is an important feature of the timber industry. Could the Executive's proposals reduce the amount of timber that is exported for processing rather than processed at home?
I will talk about adding value to the wood production process. I agree with the idea that we should ensure that much of that added value is created in Scotland, where the timber is produced.
The cluster is looking for new and less conventional ways of adding value to timber. There is scope for making more use of wood for fuel. Practical seminars on that subject have taken place in different parts of Scotland and I am encouraged by the evidence from the projects that are under way.
There is no doubt that the past few years have been difficult for the industry. Timber and wood product prices are at historically low levels, which undoubtedly poses major challenges throughout the industry. It against that difficult background that the positive work of the Scottish forest industries cluster group is so encouraging.
We want to encourage more use of timber and to add value to that process. The Forestry Commission is contributing to the generic marketing campaign "wood. for good". Last month, the Forestry Commission, along with the Executive, Historic Scotland and the architecture profession, organised a very well-attended conference on timber and the built environment.
We recently submitted a bid to the European Union for a €885,000 project to investigate, with other nordic countries, ways of using external timber cladding in maritime climates. Following the world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg, we agreed to examine ways of using our purchasing power to promote the purchase of wood products from sustainable sources.
Another difficult issue for the industry is the transportation of timber. There are places where the only access to forests is along minor roads, which were never designed for heavy use by timber traffic. I am pleased that the forestry industry is now working closely with local authorities to try to identify pragmatic solutions to those problems, including the preparation of agreed route maps and demonstration projects that are aimed at developing cost-effective road engineering solutions.
Does the minister think that part of that strategy should be the land locking of blocks of timber by the closure of roads to forestry transport?
I believe that those strategies are best worked out at the local level between the industry and local authorities, as that will produce solutions that are best suited to the local area. As the member knows because we were in Dumfries together, I launched the agreed routes map for Dumfries and Galloway and saw some of the imaginative engineering developments that are taking place in that area.
Where possible, more use is being made of sea and rail transport. That approach is being encouraged through our freight facilities grants. In January, I will meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the forestry industry for further discussions on timber transport.
Forests are also important attractions for tourists and visitors to Scotland. As members know, we are running treefest Scotland 2002, which is a year-long initiative to celebrate Scotland's trees, woods and forests. During the year, more than 750 events are taking place throughout Scotland, including the Edinburgh treefest event in Inverleith park; tree in the park in Hamilton, which attracted 27,000 people over a weekend; and a major forestry machinery demonstration, which a number of MSPs attended. That demonstration attracted so many visitors that every hotel in that part of Dumfriesshire was fully booked and provided a massive injection of money into the local economy.
In Perthshire, the big tree country initiative has shown how joint promotional work can increase the value of the local forest heritage to our local tourist industry. How many members know that in Scotland we have the oldest living thing in Europe? [Laughter.] It is not Winnie Ewing; it is the Fortingall yew. In the Borders, Forest Enterprise is developing first-class mountain biking facilities to attract more visitors to the area.
Our recent spending review provided an additional £4 million for forest recreation facilities—especially in national parks—and improvements to the natural heritage value of Scotland's national forests. That significant injection of funding recognised the importance of trees to tourism.
The Scottish forestry strategy also aims to help communities benefit from woods and forests. At present, around 50 community woodland groups in Scotland control the ownership or management of about 20,000 hectares of woodland. A number of large-scale community purchases of woodland have been made possible through the Scottish land fund. To take forward that agenda, and to encourage more community involvement in forestry, the Forestry Commission has established a forestry for people advisory panel. Our proposed grant scheme will include grants to support community woodland initiatives, which I am particularly keen to develop in urban brownfield sites. Forest Enterprise will work closely with many community groups on those initiatives.
We must also ensure that Scotland's trees, woods and forests make a positive contribution to the environment. That has not always been the case and the work of the Forestry Commission in that respect was recently acknowledged by no less than the WWF, which presented the commission with its gift to the earth award in recognition of its substantial contribution to our national environment.
Our new grants scheme will support work to improve the ecological value of native woodlands and to enlarge them through the development of forest habitat networks. We have recognised the plight of particular species and, in addition to funding the creation of new and improved habitats for capercaillie, we contributed £770,000—a not inconsiderable amount of money—to a programme of work to remove redundant fences that might kill capercaillie, which fly into them. We have also launched a black grouse recovery project in Argyll and are mapping priority areas for red squirrel management in order to secure their numbers against the predatory grey squirrel. Funding for native woodland initiatives also comes from lottery funds and private and voluntary sources. For example, BP is providing £1 million per year over a 10-year period to support native woodland projects in Scotland.
I believe that we have achieved a good deal since the launch of the strategy. We are also putting in place important foundations for future development. Closer working with others and within the Executive will improve the integration of our rural land-use and environmental policies. In the meantime, the work of the Scottish forest industry cluster group will help to develop and strengthen our forest products industry. The new administrative arrangements for forestry will ensure that we take full advantage of Scotland's significant forestry resource, which is 70 per cent of the UK total.
In order to give members a better feel for Scottish forestry and its tremendous potential, I have arranged for copies of a new publication, "Scotland's Trees, Woods and Forests", to be made available in the chamber. I hope that everyone has a copy, as the booklet includes a well-written preface by me. It has a lot of pictures, which will suit Opposition members. [Laughter.] I encourage members to read it.
We are determined to work towards our vision that Scotland will be renowned as a land of fine trees, woods and forests. They strengthen the economy, make a positive contribution to our markets and enrich the natural environment that people enjoy and value so much.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the report of the Interdepartmental Review Group on Forestry; welcomes the proposed changes to the administrative arrangements for forestry in Scotland contained in that report; notes the proposals by an industry wide steering group for a new Scottish Forestry Grants Scheme, and believes these changes will help achieve the objectives set out in the Scottish Forestry Strategy.
I am not sure whether the minister made clear in his speech whether he is a red or a grey squirrel.
I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate the importance of the forestry industry to Scotland. I was most interested in the minister's sharing of his extensive knowledge of the flight patterns of capercaillie. I am pleased that I did not quite catch his remarks about the mother of the house. It is lucky for him that she is not in the chamber. We will read with interest those remarks, whatever they were, in the Official Report.
The forestry industry is extremely important to Scotland, and it is important to underscore why that is the case. The industry provides 11,000 jobs directly and 44,000 indirectly. In the previous debate that we had on forestry, which took place in Aberdeen on 30 May, the minister estimated the value of the industry at £800 million. Along with fishing and farming, forestry is one of the three Fs of rural industries.
However, it is fair to say that the industry feels that forestry interests are not being taken seriously enough by the Government, here and in London. The Rural Development Committee, in its extensive visits around Scotland, heard at first hand about the grave problems facing the industry. As some of those issues relate to reserved matters, they are outwith our control. We have not mentioned them in the text of our amendment, because we do not want to detract attention from our positive proposals. However, such issues include the strength of the pound; the climate change levy; and—perhaps most significant of all—the massive and cheaper production of wood elsewhere, particularly in the Baltic states, the import of which is displacing indigenous timber and forest products. Those problems are very serious and, although we always welcome a note of humour—even flippancy from time to time—members should forgive me if my remarks are also very serious.
It is unfortunate that forestry was not the first choice of debate for today. We were supposed to debate foot-and-mouth, but of course the Executive was not in a position to proceed with its report. That underscores the fact that the Executive does not seem to take the forestry industry's interests as seriously as we believe it should do.
Will the member give way?
I will in a second.
Moreover, although I welcome some of the minister's comments in his opening speech, those comments are not reflected in the text of the motion. In fact, they have nothing to do with the motion, which refers primarily to administrative arrangements. There is much to be commended in the forestry strategy. However, the text of the motion invites us not to debate the real problems, but to discuss the administrative arrangements in the Forestry Commission. Those arrangements are not unimportant, particularly for the people who work in the Forestry Commission, but the industry expects us to address the real issues that it faces.
I am happy to take an intervention from the minister if he still wants to make one.
I just want to respond to the fairly cheap political point that this debate was only an afterthought. Does the member accept that I have had a proposal for a debate on forestry before the Parliamentary Bureau for a matter of months and that I have been waiting for parliamentary time so that the debate could take place? As a result, the Parliament's misfortune that we are unable to debate foot-and-mouth disease today is in fact the forestry industry's good fortune.
I am sorry that the Parliamentary Bureau has not given more priority to the minister's pleas. However, the substantive point is that the text of the Executive's motion does not invite us to consider issues of importance.
In the next 10 to 15 years, the volume of wood that is produced and harvested will increase by two thirds, which will create a number of problems and opportunities for the industry. It is essential that a market exists for such a huge increase in the volume of wood, and the Scottish National Party believes that we can pursue at least four partial solutions.
First, we must improve the appalling state of our roads. Secondly, we must create more effective methods of allowing biomass to be used as a means of generating electricity and heat. Thirdly, Government and Government agencies must have an effective procurement policy; what we have at the moment is a complete mishmash. Finally, we must promote the use of wood as an environmentally friendly building material. I acknowledge that the minister touched on some of those issues—and that the forestry strategy document addresses most of them—but the question is when the strategy will be converted into action. That lies at the root of the industry's concerns.
Although there is huge scope for wood to be used as a biofuel for the generation of electricity and/or heat, the Government does not seem to realise that wood-burning plants do not have to be huge undertakings. That appears to be the Department of Trade and Industry's policy. Relatively small-scale plants that burn wood to heat buildings could be used in schools, hospitals and public buildings. Perhaps John Home Robertson can tell us whether any thought has been given to the possibility of such heating being used for the new Scottish Parliament building.
Does the member want us to spend even more money on another boiler system?
Perhaps we will hear from Mr Home Robertson later on the subject.
The Government could do much more to encourage such developments through grants. However, the DTI does not go along with that sort of thinking.
Is Mr Ewing aware that, in Lochgilphead in Argyll and Bute, Torren Energy Ltd has developed a community wood-heating scheme, which is being installed in 50 houses that are being built by Fine Homes Ltd? The reason for choosing such a system is that Communities Scotland is encouraging the use of sustainable heating systems. As a result, policies are in place to encourage the further development of such systems throughout Scotland, and I hope that the rest of the country will follow that example.
I am certainly aware of Torren Energy's work, and very much welcome the development that George Lyon has mentioned. However, why have such developments not happened all over Scotland? What is happening in Lochgilphead is certainly more of an exception than the rule.
Why have biofuels not taken off? The simple answer is that the Government's non-fossil fuel obligation arrangements did not allow operators to use existing technology, which meant that new and unproven technology had to be used instead. As a result, although one plant was built—at Arbre Energy Ltd of Selby in Yorkshire—it failed to complete commissioning satisfactorily and subsequently went into receivership. Millions of pounds have been wasted. Government policy is certainly muddled on this issue. Although there are grants for the planting of short-rotation coppices such as willow and of other fuel crops such as miscanthus, the policy is frankly a complete waste of time and money.
On rural roads, it is unfortunate that the minister has not managed to fulfil the promise that he gave on 30 May to arrange a meeting involving the Executive, the rural affairs committee of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and representatives of the forestry industry. That meeting was supposed to take place on 12 November, but it has now been rearranged for 8 January. If the minister cannot even fulfil a promise to meet the industry, does he really expect the industry to feel that he is taking it as seriously as we believe it should be taken?
Furthermore, according to Highland Council, it will take 200 years to repair the existing minor road network in that area. It has been estimated that it will cost £80 million simply to maintain the current situation. I have no doubt that other members will talk about the state of roads in their areas. With the wall of wood that is due to arrive, the impact on the road network will be far greater than at present. Although some modest progress has been made, we all acknowledge that the problem is extremely serious.
As far as timber procurement is concerned, the industry feels that certification is in a complete muddle. The principal standard applied to forest management was developed by the Forest Stewardship Council, which is an unelected and unaccountable body based in Mexico. Although an alternative certification standard that has been developed by the Pan European Forest Certification Council has already achieved far greater volumes of certified timber than the FSC standard, attempts by the industry and others to get the FSC to recognise the PEFC standard have so far failed. The DTI and the Scottish Executive have completely failed to sort out this extremely serious problem, which is purely one of bureaucracy.
We want wood to be promoted in construction. Although I welcome to some extent what the minister has said on the issue, I want his comments to be converted into action. Building regulations might require to be altered as a result.
Urgent action is required to address concerns about rural roads, to stimulate the development of biofuels and to promote the increased use of certified wood and wood products. The Government and Government departments have a vital role to play. The strategy and the words are in place; it is time now for delivery and action.
I move amendment S1M-3541.2, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:
"but believes that the Scottish Executive has failed to acknowledge the significant contribution to the Scottish economy of the timber and forest products industry and, in particular, in respect of the existing devolved functions of the Executive, further believes that it has failed to recognise the importance of the urgent need to improve the road network used for forestry extraction, of an effective policy of procurement to encourage the Scottish national industry interest, of effective promotion of biomass to assist in the achievement of more economic means of supplying energy from renewable sources and of the encouragement and active promotion of the use of wood as a building material."
In opening this debate for the Scottish Conservatives, I want to state that I am disappointed that we are not debating the Executive's response to the foot-and-mouth report, as we should have been. I hope that, when the time comes for that debate, we will be given the full three hours that was scheduled for this morning. However, I expect to be disappointed in that regard.
The one and only good thing to emerge from the decision to postpone that debate is that we have at last been given the opportunity to debate the subject of forestry in the chamber in Executive time. If it had not been for my members' business debate in Aberdeen, the industry, which employs 11,000 people, has an enormous effect on the local economy of several rural areas of Scotland, as well as on the national economy, and was described by no less a person than Sir Michael Strang Steel, the head of Alba Trees, as the third largest in Scotland—that is what my amendment refers to—would have gone virtually unmentioned until now. It would probably not have had an airing had it not been for the postponement of the debate on the foot-and-mouth response.
I welcome this opportunity, because a great deal needs to be said. The debate is not helped by the incredibly laid back, self-satisfied and complacent tone of the Executive's motion. In essence, the motion states that everything is fine and that we should leave the industry to it. The Executive is saying that adding the word "Scottish" to a grant scheme or two and splitting the administrative structure of Forest Enterprise will achieve all the objectives that it set out in the two-year-old forest strategy. The strategy was launched by John Home Robertson, who I am pleased to see is here, published by Rhona Brankin, who clearly decided to leave before the subject came up, and studiously ignored by Allan Wilson.
Forestry is not an industry in which all is well. It is on its knees and has been for some time. The industry is up against massive competition from imported timber from the Baltic states, not only because of currency differentials but because of cost differentials. It is an industry that has been created since the last war with a significant input of taxpayers' money and is now having its transport links cut off in some cases because of a lack of a little bit more. It has had to make huge changes, rightly, to address the environmental and social benefit issues, to which the minister referred, and some of those issues still prevail. However, the addressing of those issues has added tremendous cost increases to an industry that is ill-prepared to meet them.
Forestry, however, is an industry that can be environmentally friendly. It is highly sustainable and has a massive role to play in rural development. That should be right up the street of this Scottish Government, but what is the Government's response? It asks us to agree that Parliament
"notes the report of the Interdepartmental Review Group on Forestry; welcomes the proposed changes to the administrative arrangements for forestry in Scotland contained in that report; notes the proposals by an industry wide steering group for a new Scottish Forestry Grants Scheme, and believes these changes will help achieve the objectives set out in the Scottish Forestry Strategy."
We are being asked to believe that those changes will help the forestry industry to fulfil the aims of the forestry strategy. I do not believe that, neither does the rest of my party and nor, I believe, does the Scottish National Party. We believe that, whatever the merits of the changes—it would be churlish to suggest that there are none—they will do virtually nothing to further either the aims of the forestry strategy or the needs of the industry.
I repeat that the industry is firmly on its knees and in need of assistance. Some of that assistance should take the form of firm targets. If the long-term wood supply forecasts are to be meaningfully addressed, why does the Scottish Executive not insist that the Forestry Commission remove the 40-hectare limit on unimproved land that can be planted under current grant schemes? I understand that SEERAD might be willing to increase that limit to 200 hectares, but that the commission is sitting on the fence and, in effect, preventing what would be an invaluable measure in addressing the forecast deficit of some 2.5 million metric tonnes by 2045 even if new plantings were to be doubled during the next 20 years, and a deficit of 4.5 million metric tonnes if there is no new planting.
There is an industry-wide perception that the new Scottish forestry grant schemes farmland premium will foster new plantings only where there is deemed to be a social benefit requirement. There is a perception too that the criteria for successful applications under that scheme will fall under the same parameter as areas that have received challenge funding. Some of the minister's speech probably backed up that perception. Those are not necessarily the areas that will best benefit or enhance the industry. However, if that perception is strong, there is total conviction in the industry that the application process for the new schemes, which were meant to simplify the process, is considerably more complex and bureaucratic. That, in turn, will make the schemes more expensive to administer and processing the applications will simply require more Forestry Commission staff time. That is typical of what we get from the Executive: more bureaucracy, officials and cost, and less money going to where it should be targeted.
The new Scottish schemes, and the devolving of power under the new structure, are fine in as far as they go. I will not be overly critical of them, but unless they are backed up by the political will to drive the industry forward, they are as nothing. A recent example was brought to my attention in East Ayrshire, where an application to plant 145 hectares has been submitted. Not one of the statutory consultees raised objections, and there are few transport issues and only a couple of minor local objections, which are outwith the statutory consultation process. However, the decision on whether an environmental assessment is required is still not forthcoming after nine months of fruitless negotiation. How can any industry move forward properly under those circumstances? Where is the decisiveness and firm grip of management that any industry requires?
The forestry strategy is a fine document, but without the robust political will and realistic support that I am calling for, it is a complete waste of time and effort.
That leaves the big issue of transport, on which I know that many other members will contribute. In response to my members' debate in Aberdeen on 30 May, the minister kindly agreed to my request, as Fergus Ewing mentioned, to get round the table with COSLA's rural affairs committee and industry representatives to discuss the specific problem. The minister knows what the problem is—he has been to a meeting of the timber transport forum and was present at the launch of Dumfries and Galloway's agreed timber transport route plan at the highly successful international forest fest 2002 at Lockerbie. He is probably not aware that many of the industry representatives who had to sign up to that agreement felt that they did so with a local authority gun that was loaded, cocked and well and truly held at their foreheads.
Many in the industry were grateful that the minister agreed to my request to set up the meeting, and I wrote to the minister on 17 June to ask who the industry representatives at the meeting would be. Showing his normal haste in response to the industry's interest, the minister wrote a reply on 31 October. I received it on 4 November, which was—amazingly—timed to coincide with the announcement of today's debate. I hope that I am not often thought of as a natural-born cynic, but if there are many more coincidences such as that, I will become one.
Furthermore, when I learned that the meeting that was agreed to in Aberdeen on 30 May is now scheduled to take place on 8 January, some seven months later, I realised why there is a sense of despair in the Scottish forestry industry. That lack of urgency signals a complete lack of interest, which is what the industry considers that it is getting from this Administration. The industry has a significant role in rural development and employment, but it is being held back—
Will the member give way?
I am in my final minute and winding up. The minister will be replying to the debate.
It concerns the meeting.
If the Presiding Officer is happy, I will give way.
The delay in the meeting with COSLA has been raised twice now. Does the member accept that the delay in convening the meeting has been at the behest of COSLA rather than the request of the Scottish Executive?
If the minister tells me that, I will of course accept his word. Nonetheless, I think that the meeting could have been driven with more urgency than has obviously been the case. A request can always be denied, and I would have liked to think that the Executive would show more urgency.
As I was saying, the industry has a significant role in rural development and employment and is being held back by a Scottish Government that is either unwilling or unable to support it in the way that it so desperately requires. It is met with tea and sympathy on the one hand, and inaction, as exemplified by the motion, on the other. The industry deserves a great deal better, and it would not take much resource to allow it to fulfil the potential that it undoubtedly holds. What is clear is that, under this Administration, it will not receive it.
I move amendment S1M-3541.1, to leave out from "and believes" to end and insert:
"but condemns the Scottish Executive's failure to address the practical problems which face the Scottish forestry industry, particularly with regard to transport; further notes that the Executive has failed to set and promote robust planting targets or to plan for the impending doubling of timber output over the next 10 to 15 years, and urges the Executive to give greater priority to the issues which so concern what is now the third biggest industry in Scotland."
I echo the sentiments that have been expressed by other members about their being given the opportunity this morning to debate the forestry industry.
Forestry is a very important industry to Scotland, as the previous speakers outlined. Some 1.2 million hectares are currently planted with trees in Scotland, which accounts for about 15 per cent of our total land area. That acreage has trebled since 1924. Half of Britain's forest and woodland area is located in Scotland, and 20 per cent of Scotland's forests are located in Argyll and Bute, making timber one of the most important industries in my constituency. It is a major employer, and it is very important to the well-being of many communities throughout Argyll and Bute.
Forestry wood processing, as has been said, contributes more than £800 million to the Scottish economy, although there seems to be some dispute about the number of jobs involved. The minister suggested 10,000, then we had bids of 11,000 from Fergus Ewing and Alex Fergusson. We certainly agree that a good number of jobs are involved, particularly in rural Scotland. The greatest impact is there, and although we can argue whether the industry is Scotland's third most important, clearly it has a major role to play in the prosperity of many of our rural areas.
As members have said, timber production is set to double by 2015 to 800 million tonnes a year. That is a massive increase, which will bring substantial challenges to industry and to the Government. The challenge to Government concerns transport. There is an urgent need for continued investment in our transport infrastructure to cope with the coming increase in wood production over the next few years. The industry faces great challenges to promote more use of timber, to improve its competitiveness by developing a strong forest industries network, to increase processing capacity to keep up with the increase in production that is coming on stream, and to develop products that the market needs and wants so that import substitution can take place.
There are huge market opportunities to be seized by Scotland's forestry industry to reduce its reliance on imports. Currently, the United Kingdom imports 80 per cent of its wood and wood products. That can and must change. The figure could be cut to 60 per cent by 2020, and Scottish timber could close the gap.
One of the major barriers to achieving that goal is the strength of sterling, which was touched on by two previous speakers. Our major competitors are the Scandinavian and Baltic countries. If we compare the value of the Swedish krona with the pound in the mid-1990s, we note that the krona's value has fallen by 50 per cent since 1994-95. That makes Swedish timber extremely competitive in the UK marketplace.
Does the member recognise that the biggest market for forestry products remains the rest of the UK and that we do not want anything to upset those arrangements?
Yes. The point that I am about to make is that, because of the strength of sterling, other countries' extra competitiveness is reflected in the UK market price for timber, which has fallen from somewhere above £20 per tonne in the mid-1990s to about £10 per tonne today. That is a huge fall in anyone's language. That means tighter margins for the industry and less money to invest in the future, and, in some cases, it makes the extraction of timber—certainly from some of the island areas—an uneconomic prospect. In other words, the timber can never be harvested because there is not enough return. That makes Scotland less attractive for inward investment, which links in with the need to invest in further processing capacity.
It is against that harsh economic background that the industry needs to invest even more in its future. It needs to invest in further processing capacity and more value-added production to cope with the coming increase in timber volume. It is a difficult circle to square, but that must be achieved because, without that vital investment, Scotland cannot grow its share of the UK market.
I hope that the minister can reassure us that he is doing everything possible to secure the investment that I will refer to next. It is vital that the proposed second pulp line at Caledonian Paper plc in Irvine gets the go-ahead from its parent company. Decisions are yet to be taken about where that investment will go. As far as I understand it, there is competition between the Irvine company and another plant that is located on the French-German border. The second processing line would increase throughput from the 250,000 tonnes per year that are currently processed at Irvine to 850,000 tonnes, which would be a huge jump in capacity. The public agencies are doing a lot of work to try to ensure that the investment comes to Scotland, but I ask the minister in his summing up to give an assurance that no stone will remain unturned to ensure that we secure that investment for the future of the Scottish forestry industry.
In my last few minutes, I turn to some of the transport issues that have been highlighted. Among the key issues that arise in my constituency is the shifting of timber transport from road to sea. That is working well with the use of the freight facilities grants and a substantial tonnage of wood has switched from road to sea. This morning, industry representatives told me that 110,000 tonnes in Argyllshire alone have been switched from road to sea. Timber is now loaded at Portavadie, Campbeltown and Ardrishaig and shipped directly to Caledonian Paper plc at Irvine. That has dramatically reduced the number of wood lorries on our major roads and reduced the number of miles that are travelled by 1.3 million. The freight facilities grant has already made a substantial impact in my constituency.
One would think that those changes would reduce the wear and tear on our roads and ease pressure on the local authority roads budget. One would be wrong. The transfer from road to sea has reduced timber traffic on the A83, which is a trunk road owned by the Scottish Executive. However, the local authority minor roads are used to transport timber from the forests to the ports. We face the problem of using single-track roads—originally dirt-track roads that were covered with tarmac in the 1960s using the crofting counties grant scheme—with no proper construction and no firm base underpinning them. Those roads must cope with 42-tonne wagons travelling up and down, day and night, transporting wood to the ports. Many of the single-track roads in my constituency are in a dreadful state; the surfaces are poor and grass verges are run over as drivers attempt to pass each other in tight conditions.
There is a desperate need for more investment to upgrade and improve those roads, because they will be needed in the future. We are replanting in many areas already and, in another 20 or 25 years, the traffic will return. The traffic will not disappear and yet no funding has been allocated from the local authority grant-aided expenditure scheme to ensure extra investment to upgrade the roads. All that we have from those grant schemes is the historical investment for repairs.
Will the minister give serious thought to setting up a special fund that councils can bid for to upgrade their single-track roads if they have had a huge increase in timber transport and use of the roads? Such a scheme would be of great benefit.
In my constituency, the rail scheme to transfer timber from the roads has not worked well and more work must be done.
Timber production is set to double over the next few years and that means more jobs and more opportunities for rural Scotland. We must grasp those opportunities. Scotland must invest in more processing capacity to deal with extra production and we need more value-added products. The Executive must continue to invest in our road transport infrastructure to ensure that the transport system can cope with the extra tonnage. Finally, we have a great opportunity for Scottish timber; I hope that the Government and the industry will work together and take hold of that opportunity to deliver for rural areas.
I support the motion.
I declare an interest: I am a partner in a family farming business and some trees grow on our land. Perhaps I should also make an apology. I have to attend a meeting between members of the European Committee and colleagues from Flanders and Catalonia, so I must leave the debate before the end. I apologise for any discourtesy to members in the chamber.
I whole-heartedly welcome the debate about an industry that is growing in every sense of the word. The industry makes a substantial contribution to the rural economy and to the landscape of Scotland. It is an excellent use of land and takes huge quantities of carbon dioxide pollution out of the global atmosphere. Well-managed woods and forests are major assets for the economy and ecology of Scotland. Other members have mentioned high-quality ancillary industries, such as Alba Trees—Alex Fergusson referred to it—which is located at Gladsmuir in my constituency of East Lothian. There are many more examples.
There should be considerable potential for value adding by the Scottish timber industries. Much is already going on and there is potential for more. I am delighted that a lot of Scottish oak and Scottish sycamore is being used for high-quality furniture and finishings as well as for the structure of the Holyrood building. Holyrood should be a showcase for Scottish timber and Scottish skills, which I hope will be noted nationally and internationally.
As minister with responsibility for forestry, I was an enthusiast for forestry when we were writing the new Scottish forestry strategy and I am still an enthusiast. Increasing the area of woods and forests to 25 per cent of Scotland's land area by 2050 is an excellent and achievable objective and I sincerely hope that a lot of Scots pine and native hardwood species will be included.
A lot has been achieved and I pay tribute to the good work that the Forestry Commission has done over many years. The Forestry Commission certainly did a good job of managing forestry policy and Forest Enterprise before the devolution settlement, but I am not convinced that we need to retain that United Kingdom quango structure for ever. The minister has, as he said, started the process of reform, which I welcome. However, we may need to go further and I suggest that fresh legislation may be needed sooner rather than later.
The Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department is at the heart of our Government and is fully accountable to the Parliament and to our Rural Development Committee. That is as it should be. The time may have come for forestry policy to come in from the cold and into the heart of our rural policies. The minister said that, but I think that we may need to go rather further than he suggests.
Scotland has the lion's share of Britain's forestry, as a number of members have explained. I do not believe that it makes sense to leave administration and policy development for that important sector to a detached group of civil servants under a nominated board of commissioners. I must be careful what I say. Lord David Clark, the chairman of the Forestry Commission, is an old friend and I hope that he will not mind me making that point—perhaps I should discuss it with him later—but the debate must be had.
The Forestry Commission has done an excellent job during a difficult period of history. It replanted huge areas after the decimation of forestry during the first world war. A lot has been done, but the commission may have become an anomaly in post-devolution Britain. At present, the Forestry Commission is not part of our rural affairs department. It is nominally a free-standing United Kingdom Government department, which happens to have its headquarters in Edinburgh. It is led by a board of commissioners, who are collectively accountable to the three UK forestry ministers, with Chinese walls between the Scottish, English and Welsh territorial sectors in the Forestry Commission headquarters.
My most vivid memory is of the chief executive of the Forestry Commission presenting forestry ministers with the fait accompli of a big deficit in the Forest Enterprise account and leaving it to us to persuade our respective finance ministers to pick up the tab. We have inherited an odd chain of responsibility and it is right that we should have a radical review—I was going to say "a root-and-branch review", but my colleagues have persuaded me not to—of the way in which we govern that important sector in the context of the devolution settlement.
We should certainly develop United Kingdom co-operation on research and in other shared interests. That is valuable and must continue. However, I strongly believe that Scottish forestry policy should be one of the core responsibilities of our environment and rural affairs department. I am convinced that direct accountability would be better for the management of land use and environmental policy, now that the Parliament is firmly established.
Forestry and timber have a big future in Scotland. I urge the minister to bring forestry policy in from the cold and to bring the excellent people who worked up the Scottish forestry strategy into the heart of Scotland's environment and rural affairs department. The days of the pseudo-quango should have passed and we need to move on.
I lived for many years in a highly afforested area in Galloway and watched the landscape darkening under Sitka spruce. However, I found that there was little benefit for the local community and much by way of disbenefit. There was no processing and little direct local employment, but the local people suffered the disturbance and destruction of their environment. That experience is entirely reflected in the Scottish Borders, which has, in the Kielder forest, the largest afforested area in the UK.
I am glad to see Ian Jenkins in the chamber—late and one hour into the debate, but at least we now have a Liberal Democrat MSP from the Borders present. No doubt he was busy doing something else; I bear no grudges.
Although the Scottish Borders contains the largest forest in the UK, there is no processing of timber in the area. However, there is all the inconvenience. I refer the minister to my contribution—and that of my colleague in the Scottish Borders Ian Jenkins—to the members' business debate in Aberdeen during the summer. We referred to the environmental damage to Borders villages and hamlets caused by heavily laden lorries rumbling through narrow streets. The issue of road improvements really will not matter there, because such narrow village roads cannot be repaired without being destroyed again by those lorries in any event.
The solution, although I will not dwell on it again—I hope that Mr Wilson is ready for this—is the development of the southern half of the Borders railway line, with a spur link to Kielder forest at the Riccarton junction. I was present during the statement this morning, when Margaret Curran said that she had an interesting diary. I suggest that Allan Wilson visit Riccarton junction to liven up his diary. He can travel to it on the track where the original railway line lay. The track is still there and it would be easy-peasy to put a railway line on it so that we can move the forestry trees directly on to trains. That appears to be the minister's policy and he could easily implement it.
Will Christine Grahame take an intervention?
I will not take an intervention from George Lyon, although Ian Jenkins may interrupt me if he likes.
When Allan Wilson visits Kielder, perhaps he could bring the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning. If that is what he calls cross-cutting and partnership, I would like to see it in action. They could consider locating a processing plant there. It is an insult to people to surround them by trees without providing them with any of the manufacturing. A local processing plant would also, in part, remove the problems of environmental damage.
The second part of the SNP amendment deals with encouraging the use of indigenous wood materials locally. I learn from Scottish Enterprise Borders that wood fuels used for on-site heating can often compete with fossil fuels, particularly in rural areas where wood is available nearby. I am advised that equipment for converting wood into heat is relatively cheap and simple. Control systems rarely need to be sophisticated, hot water tanks provide temporary energy storage and it is easy to incorporate a standby heat source, such as coal, oil, gas or electricity—although piped gas is often not available to remote areas—for use when the wood fuel system is out of action for maintenance purposes.
I ask the minister to investigate—he might already have done so—what has been done to encourage small-scale heating schemes. I heard about the example that has been mentioned, but I would like to know where else small-scale heating schemes could be viable, not just for schools and local hospitals, but for prisons, country hotels, farms, industrial estates and cold stores. There is a whole range of uses for such heating schemes, on which Scotland unfortunately falls down in comparison with its Scandinavian neighbours.
I refer the minister to Borders Biofuels, which has identified housing estates in the north of England and in Scotland that are close enough to sources of forestry residues to be supplied with district heating from centrally placed boiler houses. The company is offering home owners free central heating system installation in return for a contractual agreement to buy heat from a central boiler for a set period. According to the company, the cost of heat will be lower than if the home owner bought and used fossil fuel. I ask the minister to look into that.
John Home Robertson mentioned the new Scottish Parliament buildings. The timber school in the Borders uses mature fallen trees—
It is called Woodschool.
Yes. It uses those trees to make high-quality, custom-built furnishings. I hope that the procurement group will consider the materials that Woodschool uses. There are lots of good things going on.
Finally, I want to mention social inclusion. A team based at Glentress is working to help long-term unemployed people to improve their quality of life by using the availability of the forest. I wish such projects to be pursued.
Like my colleagues, I am concerned that the Executive has lodged an administrative motion rather than a substantive one. I ask the minister to reflect on the fact that, during the debate, I have not felt that either he or some of his back benchers—particularly those from urban areas—were taking the matter seriously.
When the minister launched his glossy 40-page booklet that contains pictures of trees, I wondered at whom it was aimed. However, the minister's preface helpfully advises me that it
"is written for anyone and everyone".
I am sure that people will benefit from it.
I start on a positive note by reflecting on the international forest fest 2002, which took place in Lockerbie at the end of September. It was a tremendous event, not just for Dumfries and Galloway, but for Scotland. For the first time, a major international forestry exhibition and various international competitions on forestry activities were brought together. It was a great success for the area and it showed that forestry is a modern industry. People think that forestry consists of a guy going out in the proverbial checked shirt with a chainsaw. That perception is a real problem, as it does not represent forestry. Forestry is a high-tech, modern industry. Pieces of equipment on display at Lockerbie were worth millions of pounds. There was high-tech equipment not just for taking things out of forests, but for producing products. We must turn round forestry's image of being an industry of the past. If we can present forestry properly, it will be an industry of the future.
Attracting young people into the industry is important. I saw welcome developments in Dumfries and Galloway, at Howies in Dalbeattie and at the Stephen's Croft site between Lockerbie and Moffat, but it is disappointing that young people are still reluctant to work in the industry. We need to encourage them to do so and we must equip them with skills to add value.
Let us be honest: there has been considerable resentment in Dumfries and Galloway and other areas about the industry. Trees have been grown, but transportation issues have caused pain and it has been felt that no value has been brought to the economy. There have been welcome developments in the forestry cluster in turning the situation round and getting value into the economy, but we must get youngsters with skills into the industry to take advantage of that. That is a serious challenge.
I was present when the minister announced the agreed forestry routes plan for Dumfries and Galloway at the international forest fest 2002. Not for the first time, Dumfries and Galloway Council did not follow my advice. I would not have let the minister leave the site without committing money for forest roads. I would have locked him in the presentation tent until he had agreed that more money would be made available for roads.
The plan is welcome and sensible, but it is only part of the solution. An area such as Dumfries and Galloway, which is one of the most afforested parts of Scotland, cannot generate sufficient resources from its council tax base to tackle the enormous roads problems. I am startled to find myself almost agreeing with George Lyon. There must be national funding to the local authorities that are most affected by the problem.
I accept that there is a need for increased investment in the rural road network to support the procurement of timber. As the member knows, we will invest £70 million over the next three years in the process and a further £20 million for assistance. How much more would the Tories invest?
We would quantify the problem in cash terms and work with the local authorities that are affected to allocate resources. The minister should consider a community such as Eskdalemuir, which has 235 residents on the electoral roll. There are hundreds of thousands of trees in that area and the council cannot be expected to invest £15 million or £20 million in local road networks. There must be a mechanism for national support funding for roads into such communities.
Despite what the member says, does he accept that the Conservative Government scrapped the crofting counties roads scheme? Does he regret that move?
David Mundell has one minute left.
As I have only one minute, I cannot speak about the previous or the future Conservative Government. The roads issue cannot simply be brushed aside and it cannot and should not be party politicised. With the doubling of timber production in the next few years, the issue is serious and must be resolved. I do not for one minute suggest that there is an easy fix, but resources must be made available, otherwise the current balance between communities and the forestry industry will come to a head and we will be unable to progress. There are road safety issues and the sheer destruction of the roads must be considered. Such issues must be grappled with if there is to be a truly vibrant forestry industry in Scotland.
I welcome the opportunity to debate forestry. The nature of forestry is such that action that we take today will have long-term effects that will sometimes last for many generations. Therefore, we need to get our policies right for the future. If we agree a long-term vision for forestry, outcomes will be delivered many years hence. Species such as Sitka spruce provide a fast economic return, but we need to get the balance right in respect of native woodland. If such woodland is properly managed, it can create returns, albeit that those will not be in the short term.
There are many side-benefits of forestry—for example, visitor attractions and forest walks—and forest management must have regard to those benefits. It is important that such activities are encouraged and that everyone is allowed to benefit from forestry, not only economically, but socially. Knowledge of the environment can be increased and recreation and exercise provided. One problem that I have come across in that respect is the lack of joined-up government. That does not necessarily create barriers for large forestry organisations that have the resources to build relationships with all the agencies, but it can for small owners or community forests.
Forestry planting and management are supported through rural development grants, while local enterprise companies' responsibilities cover the creation of facilities for visitors, walkers, cyclists and educational trips. I am not criticising how the different agencies work to fulfil their obligations, but I am criticising the lack of a one-stop shop, which, if people are not used to working with many agencies, can be off-putting and can create barriers. Our policy must cover all aspects of forestry and make assistance and advice more accessible to smaller developers.
I want to discuss community ownership of forestry. Everyone is aware of the benefits that were brought about by community ownership at Abriachan and I am sure that we would want that model to be copied. I have been in touch with the North Sutherland Community Forest Trust. It is keen to see local ownership of forests such as Borgie forest, but Forest Enterprise does not seem to be encouraging that aspiration. Forest Enterprise is working towards a management agreement with the community, but that falls short of the goal of community ownership, which would allow the community to plan for the future and create jobs. One obstacle appears to be that the forest has a mature crop that is ready to harvest, but that obstacle could be overcome if Forest Enterprise handed over the forest to the community in stages following harvesting.
There are many ways in which communities can benefit from the ownership of forests. As has been said, they can look for uses for waste products and for new and innovative uses of native species. Communities are more likely to take an holistic approach to managing forests and creating jobs. Large timber operators tend to be interested in harvesting timber, but they tend not to be as concerned with side-benefits, such as tourism or community business.
One side-benefit of forestry is the use of waste products for energy creation—that subject has been discussed this morning. I was interested in the fact that a project is being considered in Kinlochleven that will provide heating and hot water for 600 homes. The price of that scheme should equate to about half of what it costs to heat an average home in Scotland. The scheme would bring huge benefits to the community. We know that in rural areas there is not the same choice in energy. Most people are forced to use electricity for heating, which can often be expensive. We must encourage such projects. George Lyon mentioned the project in Argyll, which was supported by Communities Scotland.
We need to find more uses for native woodlands. A lot of work is being done to investigate how we can use low-grade timber. I pay tribute to Highland Birchwoods, which has examined the feasibility of using that type of timber for flooring and windows, for example. We must learn lessons from the past about how we manage native woodlands. If they were managed properly, the timber would be of higher quality and would obviously have better uses.
I know that many members have talked about transportation, but I want to add that we must consider transportation at the planning stage for forestry, not when the forest is ready to harvest and we find it necessary to have a knee-jerk reaction. In planning forestry and allowing forests to be created, we must feed into the local plan our views on how the forest will be harvested and how the timber will be accessed.
The problem is that that would have been fine 30 years ago, but the forests are now where they are and the likelihood is that most replanting will be on the same sites for obvious reasons of economics and ownership. Changing the planning process now will not give us a big advantage.
That is not necessarily true. Given that we are trying to extend forestry cover in Scotland, an awful lot of new forests will be planted. I am not saying that the road that will take the timber out should be built before the forest is planted, but that consideration should be fed into the local plan—it has to be accepted as an issue that is up and coming. If we leave it to the last moment, we will have timber rotting on the ground with no way of extracting it. It is important that we address the matter.
I urge the minister to meet members of the North Sutherland Community Forest Trust to see whether we can take forward their aspirations. I would be pleased if he also took on board my comments on other issues.
Having compiled a member's bill on forestry, I was particularly interested in the forestry devolution review. I would go so far as to say that I was quite excited by its final recommendations, because they were somewhat similar to my own thinking. That excitement was dulled by the watered-down stance that the Scottish ministers have taken.
I went a bit further than the review group's recommendations, in that, like Rhoda Grant, I wanted local communities to have a real say in what happens with the forests in their neighbourhood. However, our policies were similar. The policy of ensuring that decisions are taken at a level as close to the people as possible is known as subsidiarity.
I remember that Jack McConnell looked quite surprised when Kenny MacAskill told him that as First Minister he owned Inverness airport. The Scottish ministers also own Scotland's forests. The ownership of the forests was transferred under the Transfer of Property etc (Scottish Ministers) Order 1999 (SI 1999/1104). Article 4 of the order transferred
"all rights and interests belonging to a Minister of the Crown in any land in Scotland"
acquired under sections 39 and 40 of the Forestry Act 1967 and any property used for the functions of the Forestry Commission in Scotland, with the exception of the Forestry Commission headquarters in Corstorphine Road and the research offices.
Given that the Scottish ministers own the forests in Scotland, I found it surprising, to say the least, that they do not want to take real control over what are some of Scotland's most precious national assets. It is surprising that the Scottish ministers do not want to bring the management of Scotland's forests more transparently within the control of Scotland's people. I cannot see how the minister can justify leaving such a valuable Scottish asset in limbo. The position can easily be altered. Westminster legislation is not required. We already own Scotland's forests, so let us bring their operation back home. I ask members to support the SNP position and set up a forestry management structure in Scotland for Scotland. For the sake of the Scottish timber industry, let us be brave.
As I said, the ministers own the forests, but they hold them in trust for everyone who lives in Scotland. They should work towards making them forests for us all. I want a restoration of the public aspects of Scotland's forests. That is starting to happen in some ways with the central Scotland forest in my area and the Millennium Forest for Scotland Trust, for example.
I have read the booklet that the minister recommended—"Scotland's Trees, Woods and Forests"—and its foreword. The document represents a way forward and it is good that we are putting out that kind of publication. There must be a proactive reconnection of the people in the country with the assets of the country, such as forestry. We must be aware of how forestry issues and policy affect us all. For example, is the presence of vast conifer monocultures really the way forward for Scottish forestry? Should we not have more regard to the need for biodiversity? Should we think of our forests only as a cash crop? Why can we not turn the forests for which we have paid so handsomely through our taxes into a vast national resource for education, leisure, employment and other social and economic ends? I say that we can.
I am confused about what Linda Fabiani is proposing. I understood that her draft bill intended to divide the functions of the Forestry Commission among local authorities, but that there was little appetite for that among local authorities or industry. She is now talking about a "vast national resource". How are the two ideas compatible?
The minister is wrong. The proposal that he mentioned was one of the options that was outlined in my consultation, but the general thrust of the bill was to bring forests under some form of local control.
Education about our forests is important. I commend an initiative that has been started in Dalkeith, in Rhona Brankin's constituency—the world of trees initiative. I declare an interest, as I am a trustee of the charity that is promoting it. The initiative aims to make the forest an educational resource for young people, so that they can see the benefits that forestry brings to us all. A generation of children is growing up who cannot tell one tree from another. Adults are generally the same—I am certainly no expert.
The wildlife in the forests represents another huge learning resource, but it, too, is in danger. The minister mentioned capercaillie. There is a problem with declining stocks of capercaillie in the wild. We must look again at how we are managing that decline.
For the future of Scotland, for her people and for her environment, we must promote a new linkage between the people and the land. I hope that we can seize the opportunity now and move that forward.
We have heard about the history of the Forestry Commission and how much of an influence it is on everybody in the countryside. The Forestry Commission has, for more than 80 years, been a major influence on the Scottish economy, particularly on the rural economy where the Forestry Commission and its subsidiaries have provided jobs, homes and business opportunities that have helped to retain and sustain families and communities in many of the deprived and sparsely populated areas of our countryside.
The concept of the Forestry Commission was first launched in Scotland in 1919. It was established as a massive job creation exercise—and an excellent one it was. That followed the end of the great war and was an early attempt to promote the stated promise of a land fit for heroes.
From that simple beginning, the initiative has developed a vibrant economy. As we have heard, it has supported about 7,000 direct jobs in forestry and a further 3,500 jobs in timber processing, which together contribute about £800 million per annum to the Scottish economy. That is quite a success story and extremely good value for the annual subsidy of £33 million that the Forestry Commission currently receives for its activities in Scotland from the Scottish consolidated fund.
The Forestry Commission, as everyone will know, is responsible for the protection, expansion and promotion of Scotland's forests and woodlands. It has, in its wisdom, established a subsidiary company named Forest Enterprise, which is the commercial arm of the Forestry Commission and is responsible for the entire forest estate.
Apart from the main function of timber production and harvesting, Forest Enterprise has progressively developed its forests in harmony with the surrounding environment. It has created habitats for the protection of wildlife and is continuously extending its tourist and visitor facilities, providing woodland walks, cycle tracks, car parks, pony paths, picnic areas and so on, which all make a valuable contribution to our rural economy.
As Forest Enterprise continues to develop and expand, it is obvious that it will require additional financial support to achieve its targets and objectives. Much of its harvestable timber cannot be extracted over our deteriorating rural roads. Many of the plantations are inaccessible by road and Forest Enterprise has been forced to load timber on to barges and small coasters for direct delivery to the mill or railhead. While that is undoubtedly environmentally friendly, it involves expensive specialist equipment and expertise, which we should support through something like a dedicated marine freight facilities grant. In north-west Skye, in my constituency, Forest Enterprise has extracted by sea 17,000 tonnes of timber. That is quite an achievement in such a remote area.
I hope that the forest industry will come to have an even more important role in our rural economy. For instance, last month, signatories of the Kyoto protocol met in India to discuss international rules on carbon trading. The debate proposed an option to allow forest plantations, or carbon sinks, to be included in the carbon-trading scheme as a much-needed boost to the effort to find a solution to the problem of global warming. The protocol requires developed countries and companies to reduce CO2 emissions to 5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2008. A company that is unable to meet its targets can buy credits from a less polluting company or invest in less polluting operations. CO2 absorption by forest plantations, however, is not yet included, which is a great pity. The Scottish Executive must work with Forest Enterprise to encourage the British Government to promote the inclusion of forestry in the Kyoto protocol. Forestry could be a productive and innovative way of meeting international commitments on global warming as well as of regenerating rural communities.
We have heard this morning that forestry in Scotland has been an undoubted success. We are indebted to Forest Enterprise for its diligence and foresight and we must continue to support its efforts in order that the next 80 years can deliver the same degree of excellence. I am pleased to support Allan Wilson's motion.
I want to speak about the parts of the strategy that concern the contribution that forestry makes to the environment, the creation of opportunities to help people to enjoy the trees, woods and forests and the ways in which we can help communities to benefit from that strategy.
We should all play a part in the campaign to preserve what is left of our native woodland and to recreate woods grown from our native trees such as rowan, birch and oak. With careful management, funding and the involvement of local communities, a great deal can be achieved. I was pleased to hear the minister remind us this morning of the £4 million announced in the spending review for forest recreation facilities, giving groups that are committed to improving our cultural heritage the opportunity to progress innovative ideas. Indeed, it was a project by the Scottish Woodland Trust that enabled me to give my grandson in Australia a present of 100 trees planted in the north of Scotland for him and his school. When Christine Grahame was talking about the Kielder forest, I remembered that it was on a walk through that forest that my husband proposed to me. I accepted and have lived happily ever after, so I could say that there is romance in them thar woods.
Local communities and schools should be encouraged to participate in the development of native woodland schemes, with the right kind of management and adequate funding.
I would like to make a plea for support for the planting of trees in our urban areas. Apart from the regrettable absence of shops and community centres in housing schemes that were built in the 1950s and 1960s, little thought was given to decent landscaping. The development of woodland in and around our towns and cities should be part of the new system of woodland management. Trees enhance any built-up area and might mask some of the awful 1950s and 1960s architecture. There is something dispiriting and cold about a treeless shopping, business or housing development. We should argue for tree-planting schemes in our countryside and in our towns and cities.
I welcome the minister's statement. There should be public participation in the management schemes. We must ensure that voluntary organisations that are doing a good job in relation to the replanting of our native woodlands, such as the Scottish Woodland Trust, are given the support that they need. However, we must remember that the right balance must be found between the complementary pressures on land use to ensure that the needs of agriculture, biodiversity, transport and forestry fit appropriately with access for leisure and tourism.
We are now down to speeches of four minutes. I call Robin Harper.
I am happy to declare my interests as a member of the Scottish Woodland Trust, Borders Forest Trust, and the Carrifran Wildwood trust. I am also an avid planter of trees: before being elected, I personally organised the planting of 1,000 trees in Craigmillar as part of an inner-city project and I have distributed, free of charge, many oaks from my back-garden Scottish oak nursery to friends and relations all over Scotland and England.
This debate has been excellent in that it has raised many issues around forestry of which the Executive must tak tent. However, one issue has been missed out. Of the members of the Transport and the Environment Committee, we have with us in the chamber no Conservative, Labour, SNP or Liberal Democrat member—no members of the Transport and the Environment Committee are present apart from me.
Will the member give way?
No, because I am making an important point. The absence of those members highlights the assumption that forestry is a rural development matter rather than an environmental one. Similarly, from the minister's speech we find that an issue that the Transport and the Environment Committee has been dealing with for four or five months has been left out: the water framework directive.
Page 24 of the document "Scotland's Trees, Woods and Forests"—which, although it is not produced by the Executive, is typical of an Executive document in that it is 70 per cent pictures and 30 per cent content—draws our attention to the contribution that forestry can make to the terms of the water framework directive. The minister will also be aware of the policy suggestions that have been developed by the WWF in its wild waters directive.
John Home Robertson said that forestry should be a core responsibility of the Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department and I absolutely agree. However, is forestry integrated? The flavour of the debate so far suggests that one extremely important aspect of the huge opportunities for forestry to get engaged in development in terms of the water framework directive, particularly in relation to water quality and flood management—which is not to say that the water framework directive says that forestry must do that—has been missed. There was no sign in the minister's speech that the Executive is considering that as a core future development. Perhaps it is considering it and work is going on in the background. My criticism is that that is not being highlighted and was not highlighted in the minister's opening speech.
There is no doubt that this is the time to factor forestry development into the water framework directive; it must not be left until later. The same point can be made about agriculture: there is no sign that agriculture has been factored in. I throw a challenge into the Executive's lap. What will the Executive do on such integration? There is no sign of it at the moment.
In gentle chastisement of Robin Harper, for whom I have a high regard, I say that one does not need to serve on a committee to study or be interested in an issue that is debated in the chamber.
I was not criticising the members present.
I am sorry, but I am not going to get into a debate with Robin Harper. It is important to place on the record that all of us can be interested in subjects without necessarily being on a subject committee and that we should not chastise people who are probably working hard elsewhere.
In the short time that I have, I am pleased to participate in the debate, particularly as, for well-known reasons, I missed Alex Fergusson's members' business debate in Aberdeen on the timber industry. I read that debate with great interest, despite the painkillers that I was on at the time, and found many of the comments extremely helpful. Some of those comments have been reiterated in this debate.
My colleague Alasdair Morgan will close on behalf of the SNP. The Gallovidians have the most afforested constituency in Scotland, and the Moravians have the second most afforested constituency. Alasdair Morgan and I have therefore shared over many years opportunities to discuss forestry. We often had to fight in the House of Commons for the issue to be raised. Occasionally, we would get a question in to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Any debates that were held were usually late at night and also of short duration. However, the Scottish Office always replied to those debates, because it was considered the lead office on that subject in acknowledgement of the significance of the forestry industry to Scotland. I can make no comment about the Scotland Office, because I am not sure that it leads on anything these days. I will not develop that discussion, because I am sure that the Presiding Officer would rule me out of order.
I will pick up on a few points. I intervened on the minister's opening statement with a point on the processing of timber, which is vital. We seem to be giving ministers rather crowded diaries this morning—Margaret Curran and Allan Wilson will be extremely busy. Nevertheless, I suggest that the minister comes to Moray and visits James Jones and Sons in Mosstodloch, where we have an up-to-date, highly skilled sawmill and processing plant. Not a piece of the timber is wasted: the bark goes to garden centres, and we have all seen people such as Alan Titchmarsh and the Beechgrove gardeners use it. Allan Wilson could then visit Buckie harbour, where he would probably see more timber waiting to be exported to be pulped in the nordic states than he would see fish, which is an aspect that worries us in that area. Much more could be done to encourage processing in Scotland.
Little has been said about addressing the price of timber. It has fallen substantially—by approximately 25 per cent—in the past several years. Although I realise that the Executive has given some additional money to forestry and the timber industry this year, that money does not make a dent in that substantial price fall, which obviously has an impact on the industry's potential.
The minister spoke about the health, educational and recreational purposes of forestry. On his visit to Moray, he could visit Culbin forest, which is one of the most wonderful, most blissful places to visit. It surrounds the beautiful Findhorn bay. We have been talking about capercaillie, but we recently had a Pulp concert at Silver Hill, near Duffus, about forestry. That concert attracted more than 3,000 young people and had a huge impact on the local economy. We have mountain bike fields near Fochabers, which young people run voluntarily and which have almost 50 members.
All those things are happening. We need a clear strategy to ensure that the industry progresses. We are all proud of it and we consider it an asset to Scotland, but for goodness' sake, let us get the strategy right and not leave the industry isolated with vague promises.
I call Alasdair Morrison and then Brian Fitzpatrick.
In the few minutes that I have, I will dwell on the merits of the crofters forestry scheme. The minister will recall that, during his successful visit to my constituency during the summer, we discussed that scheme's merits. Since its inception, it has been a force for good, not only in the Western Isles, but throughout the Highlands and Islands.
I am sure that the minister will also recall that my Hebridean colleague, Calum MacDonald MP, was the one who successfully piloted the Crofter Forestry (Scotland) Act 1991 through the House of Commons. Since that act received royal assent, thousands of acres of trees have been planted in the crofting counties.
The importance of the crofter forestry scheme cannot be overstated. Whether the crofters carry out the work themselves or use forestry agents, it involves a great deal of community participation. The scheme has proved to be an excellent early example of community-based forestry. The benefits for crofters are varied. They include the availability of shelter for livestock around the croft and on the hill, the creation of wildlife habitats and small-scale timber production. Importantly, the scheme also allows crofters to diversify their agricultural activities and provides an alternative source of income.
Wherever there has been a scheme, it has guaranteed crofters and grazings committees a source of income. They first of all receive an establishment grant and then, for some 15 years thereafter, are in receipt of management payments.
In the context of Executive budgets, the sums of money are not spectacular. However, the crofter forestry money is literally transforming—and has transformed—the landscape. It is also transforming the fortunes of many villages and villagers in my constituency and throughout the Highlands and Islands.
Since the mid-1990s, grazings committees have received money for the first time since their inception. That money has been spent wisely and communally on schemes that benefit crofters and other village residents.
That is the history over the short period of some 10 or 12 years. The future of the scheme concerns me. I have some delicacies about the changes that are proposed to the woodland grant scheme. I agree with the change of emphasis to the regeneration of existing woodlands and away from tree planting.
However, the minister will recall from his visit to the Western Isles that many of the landscapes there are uninterrupted by trees. We, of course, point the finger directly at Tavish Scott's Scandinavian relatives, who, uninvited, visited the Hebrides over 1,000 years ago. I am sure that the minister appreciates that we cannot talk about regenerating existing woodlands in the Hebrides. We must talk about regeneration there in the sense of replanting and replacing what used to exist. I urge the Executive to take account of that obvious fact and ensure that the crofter forestry scheme continues in the Western Isles.
I endorse what Rhoda Grant said about Borgie forest. I urge the Executive to move on Borgie forest and ensure that the community is allowed to secure ownership and management of that forest. We have already seen the benefits of that throughout the Highlands and Islands, whether on Eigg, in Assynt or through the Stornoway Trust. North Harris—DV—will follow suit. The aspirations of the North Sutherland Community Forest Trust dovetail with our land reform proposals. I urge the Executive to move quickly on that.
I would wish to be associated with few issues that Alasdair Morgan raises, but I fully support his point about job dispersal, which he made in an intervention. Calum MacDonald MP and I have supported moves by Highland colleagues to have Scottish Natural Heritage's headquarters moved from Edinburgh to Inverness. I would urge the minister to move the Forestry Commission jobs nearer to the trees, as Alasdair Morgan put it, and to the communities attached. I would urge the minister to move those jobs from Corstorphine to Carloway.
I am sorry, but my screen has been playing up. For Brian Fitzpatrick, whom I had said was going to be next to speak, read Alex Johnstone.
I hope that that confusion will not be made often, Presiding Officer.
I have a couple of topics to explore. First, I will do the traditional regional thing and point out that forestry is an important part of the rural economy in the north-east of Scotland. It provides direct employment in tree nurseries and in timber management and production. It is also important indirectly, through associated businesses such as tourism, for example. It is estimated that about 1,330 people are employed in the forestry industry in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire. Although production in the area is currently below 400,000 tonnes a year, that figure, as is the case in the rest of Scotland, is forecast to double over the next 10 years.
There is real potential for creating jobs in the industry, but one or two things must be addressed—and are being addressed extensively—by Aberdeenshire Council and Aberdeen City Council, which have been working together on a review of the joint indicative forestry strategy. It is hoped that the final version of the strategy will be submitted to the Scottish Executive this month. The Executive has possibly received it already.
Throughout the latter part of the 20th century, timber planting has resulted in Aberdeenshire's having about 92,000 hectares of woodland, which represents about 14 per cent of the total land area. The forest resource varies from about 18 per cent of the land in Donside and Deeside to less than 7 per cent in Buchan. The two councils' indicative forestry strategy identified Banff and Buchan as being the preferred area for new planting, which has helped to secure Forestry Commission support for the planting of well-designed, productive forests.
The key issue that the forestry industry must address for the north-east, as for the rest of the country, is that of transport. It is extremely important that roads are maintained. In particular, we need links for moving around Aberdeen, and I make no apologies for mentioning Aberdeen's need for a western peripheral bypass.
There has already been an enormous effort in transporting timber by rail—although perhaps not by sea. Timber has started to be delivered to a railhead at Inverurie recently, which has taken a great deal of timber off the main road south, via Aberdeen. The problem is that taking timber away by rail takes it out of the area for processing elsewhere. We want the timber to be processed in the area. If that means moving timber from the area to the north of Aberdeen, where there is considerable production, to the south of Aberdeen, where there is processing capacity, then it needs to get past the city of Aberdeen. At the moment, the road network is simply not up to that. If the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development could have a word in the ear of the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, I would be most obliged.
Secondly, the environmental impact and contribution of forestry has been the subject of debate. At this point, I give my full backing to the minister for his support for the red squirrel. It is a bit like the issue of seagulls, which some people do not take very seriously. The demise of the red squirrel is something that none of us would like, and the environment that forests create in the north and north-east is the last bastion in the defence of that species.
While on the subject of the environment, I would like to apologise for the non-presence of John Scott, our environment spokesman and Transport and the Environment Committee member, at the debate. He was scheduled to take part, and would have done so gladly had he not had to withdraw at the last minute.
Will Alex Johnstone accept that my earlier remarks were in no way meant as a chastisement of my colleagues on the Transport and the Environment Committee? I presume that colleagues would have been here if they had been asked to be here. My comments were on the party approach to what is a rural affairs issue.
Indeed, I fully accept that. I will, however, make one final remark on the environmental aspects of forestry. There are many sirens among this audience that are trying to bring the minister round to the idea that forestry is almost exclusively an environmental issue. For areas such as the north-east and the south-west, forestry is very much a commercial issue. While the Conservatives accept that the environmental aspects are important, the commercial aspects are also extremely important in many regions. I support the minister's environmental principles. I am, however, disappointed by the absence of other aspects of forestry in the motion, so I gladly support the Conservative amendment, which highlights the issues of real priority to the forestry industry in Scotland.
We now come to winding-up speeches. Members should keep to their allotted times, and make their speeches a little shorter if possible. Jamie Stone, for the Liberal Democrats, has four minutes.
This has been a wide-ranging debate, and I congratulate Alex Johnstone on going to both ends of the spectrum: from red squirrels to the Aberdeen western peripheral bypass, amazingly enough. That is the nature of the debate, however.
In response to an intervention during his opening speech, Allan Wilson touched on job dispersal, which is hugely important. He spoke about community initiatives, to which I will return when I mention Linda Fabiani's speech. We have also heard about redundant fences, red squirrels and the importance of forestry to the Scottish economy. Whether the correct figure for the industry is 11,000 or 10,000 direct jobs is neither here nor there; we know that an awful lot of jobs are involved and we know how important they are.
Fergus Ewing highlighted roads, to which I shall return at the end of my speech. He also touched on the parts of the SNP amendment that deal with biomass. I was particularly interested in his thoughtful comments on encouraging increased use of wood in the building industry. Having spoken informally to him after he made his speech and having learned that he was referring to timber framing, I endorse his remarks entirely. We can go further; it would—whether we are talking about building regulations or the tweaking of planning regimes—behove the Parliament to make positive moves in that regard.
I congratulate the new willowy figure of Alex Fergusson who has done extremely well; he has lost a great deal of weight recently. He clearly feels passionately about the forestry industry, which he described as an industry that is "firmly on its knees"; however, none of us can take anything away from the sincerity of his remarks. I am sorry about any problems that he has had with delayed postal services.
George Lyon was right to highlight the importance of the rail network and the movement of timber by sea. He talked about investment in the future and thinking ahead. He talked about getting imports down from their present level, which is far too high; that is a laudable aim.
David Mundell was absolutely correct to address the image of the forestry industry. I do not think that many of us think that people working in it still wear lumberjack shirts, but the industry has to be made a more sexy and convincing career choice. Indeed, it can be a very suitable career.
Linda Fabiani and Rhoda Grant both spoke about community involvement. I whole-heartedly endorse Linda's remarks on the county of Sutherland. She also talked about the involvement of the young, as did David Mundell. The school outings and walks that are being developed in forested areas are good, but we could go a lot further.
John Farquhar Munro gave us a comprehensive overview of the history of the Forestry Commission, and discussed what could be done in relation to the Kyoto protocol, and Margaret Ewing rightly highlighted timber processing. We heard about the sawmill at Mosstodloch and about the export of timber through Buckie. She is absolutely right to say that sawmills have been closing—at least throughout my lifetime—and that trend could and should be reversed.
Alasdair Morrison, to my surprise, mentioned the Vikings. We will leave that to one side for the moment, however, while I endorse the remarks that were made about roads. I am grateful that the minister acknowledged concerns on the subject in response to an intervention. We require a fund that local authorities can bid into because, as the minister is aware from my correspondence, there is in my constituency a huge problem with the roads—one from which we cannot walk away.
Although I am sure that the Forestry Commission will see advantages in the strategy review, the one thing that stands out is the call for value for money. With that in mind, we must hope that the grant schemes will concentrate on key priorities.
The emphasis appears to have shifted from growing and harvesting timber to the development by Forest Enterprise of partnership projects such as the Dalriada project in Argyll. Forest Enterprise has linked with British Waterways and voluntary community groups in promoting environmentally friendly schemes for the public good. Those schemes are good and I am all for the public good. On the public good, I note that one of the documents mentions tackling deer problems and that the minister spoke about the value of wildlife. I hope that Forest Enterprise will consider red deer and roe deer as an asset rather than a menace and will immediately stop its scandalous policy of incessant year-round slaughter of those species, which are a priceless part of Scotland's natural heritage. If those species are managed properly, they can be incorporated into forestry policy.
The main issue is that more attention should be given to making the forestry industry a more robust player in the Scottish economy. Now that there are three separate countryside agencies in Great Britain, it is essential that they operate with minimum bureaucracy and that duplication of services is avoided. For example, a single unit provides machinery and vehicles for Forest Enterprise throughout Great Britain, which works efficiently. The system must stay efficient. If we want a good forestry industry, we must tackle the practical problems that hinder it.
I will make five points, the first of which is on transport. I ask the minister to consider specifically the Argyll timber transport group's bid—which has twice been refused—for a grant to produce more haul routes on roads of the group's making, which would remove pressure from public roads. The Executive should promote payment of more freight facilities grants by building new piers and maintaining old ones in areas where timber can be transported by sea. I am thinking of places such as Loch Striven, Craighouse on Jura and Bunessan pier on Mull. The transport of timber by sea saves huge Government expenditure on the damage that timber lorries do to roads.
Secondly, as the Scottish Executive cannot see the wood for the trees, we had better thin the trees. The point of the forestry grant scheme must be to produce quality saw-log timber from the existing forestry crop and to improve forests' commercial quality. We need good productive forestry plantations. The Executive should look to Belgium and Austria, which offer generous grants—supported by the European Union—for non-commercial thinning, which is essential to the production of quality timber.
Thirdly—and very important—there is not a level playing field in relation to grant allocations to Forest Enterprise and to the private sector because new planting is not taken into consideration. Although private companies have created 10,000 hectares of new planting, Forest Enterprise has planted only 100 hectares. That is a sad reflection of the fact that state-run enterprises continually receive Government support at the private sector's expense.
Fourthly, Scotland should use forestry for biofuel. The scheme at Whitegates in Lochgilphead is the first district scheme of that type in Scotland. Under the scheme, 48 homes are heated by wood chips from local forestry. There is a central boiler and the users are metered individually. In Malmö in Sweden, the homes of 100,000 people—half the population of the city—are heated in the same way. I point out to Robin Harper that such schemes do not involve fossil fuel, but carbon-neutral fuel that is endlessly renewable, which is what he likes. I wonder why he did not mention that scheme because it is a key point and is based on the principle of biodiversity.
The practice is similar to that carried out centuries ago on the hillsides around Loch Lomond, where timber was coppiced on a 20-year cycle to make charcoal. The new system combines an age-old product with modern technology to create a non-polluting benefit. If enterprises such as the Whitegates scheme were given the benefit of the non-fossil fuel premium, which goes to other renewable sources such as hydro and wind power, there would be a rush to create a new industry in Scotland.
Finally, the Executive should support any initiative to bring a new pulp mill to Scotland and to create a biofuel plant alongside it. Scotland has an enormous paper-making industry. It is ridiculous that the Arjo Wiggins Carbonless Papers Ltd site in Fort William makes high-quality paper with 100 per cent imported pulp in an area that is surrounded by forestry, but there is no doubt that the company would prefer to use local pulpwood.
In Scotland, the timber and customers exist, but the methods must be changed. Scotland needs three forest products: quality saw-logs, biofuel timber and pulpwood. That is how to make the forestry industry profitable.
I represent what is either the most forested constituency in the country or the second most forested one. There is a question as to whether Galloway and Upper Nithsdale or Argyll and Bute has that particular honour. Either way, there are a lot of trees nearby.
I re-emphasise my earlier point about the dispersal of Forestry Commission jobs. In the past few years, there has been a loss of jobs in rural areas through the closure of Forestry Commission area offices. So, far from jobs being dispersed, we have a smaller proportion of them than we had some years ago.
I am a supporter of jobs dispersal, but we must appreciate the fact that the Forestry Commission is a cross-border public authority that has a Scottish headquarters and that there is a danger that dispersal in a GB context would mean a net loss of jobs from Scotland.
Indeed. However, the forestry devolution review, which we are meant to be discussing today, recommends dispersal of jobs from the commission's headquarters to the various national offices. Given the fact that the Executive has accepted that, I presume that that will happen in any event.
During the minister's wide tour d'horizon—which covered everything from the review to the grey squirrel population to roads and tourism—he said very little about the devolution review, although it is meant to be the main subject of the debate. The review is a fairly dry document, however, so perhaps that is just as well.
We have had a wide-ranging debate in which many subjects have been raised. It was rather inventive of Alex Johnstone to introduce the Aberdeen peripheral route, but I suppose that everything is fair game. Fergus Ewing raised some good points about roads—to which I shall return—and biomass. We are interested in the example of the use of biofuel in Lochgilphead, although that demonstrates how slow we are in getting to where we want to be. I would like the minister to comment on the way in which the provisions north and south of the border seem to militate against developments in biofuel. Fergus Ewing also mentioned certification problems in relation to promotion policy, and the promotion of the use of timber in building.
Several people—notably Alex Fergusson—raised the issue of bureaucracy, particularly as it surrounds applications for future development. The conclusion that we are coming to is that, although the words are fine, there seems to be a lack of urgency to implement the policy. The strategy is fine, but is it being pushed forward? If it takes eight months from request to fruition to arrange a meeting, sufficient urgency is not being given to what is being done.
I echo members' comments on the importance of the forestry industry to rural areas. Nevertheless, its importance is not always immediately obvious and there is a problem of perception. Christine Creech—
Do not call me that.
I apologise—old habits die hard. Christine Grahame mentioned some of the disadvantages of forestry to people in rural areas. There are problems with water quality and fishing, which I was going to mention before Robin Harper spoke. Many of the rivers in Galloway are blighted by acid problems that are caused partly by insensitive tree planting. There are also the problems of road traffic and the look of many of the forests. The problems are made worse by the fact that many of the forests are owned by private owners who live hundreds of miles away from them.
There is an additional problem in that the employment benefits to contractors and drivers are not necessarily experienced by the people who live next door to the forests and who may object to future forestry developments. It is important to get communities on our side in talking about the development of forestry. I regularly receive mail on two main issues with regard to forestry. The majority of complaints are about timber traffic passing through villages and causing danger and damage. Where large timber lorries pass through villages at fairly high speeds, often in convoy, that causes considerable alarm.
Alex Fergusson and others also raised the issue of certain areas of forest becoming landlocked because councils have introduced weight limit orders to preserve what remains of the fabric of roads. That problem must be resolved, otherwise we will throw away the value of forestry, not just to the firms that carry out forestry—including the Forestry Commission, which is the biggest of those firms and which we own—but to the nation. We will throw away the value of our investment in forestry if we cannot harvest it.
Despite my intervention, I agree with Rhoda Grant that a priority in new forestry developments must be to look to the future and consider how the trees will be taken out when they reach maturity. However, our main problem over the next 10 to 20 years will be existing forests, many of which were planted without consideration of how they would be removed.
The minister referred to the use of rail, but there are currently few railways in rural Scotland. In addition, rail transport is only economic over long distances and there is the problem of antiquated infrastructure; many places have old railways and sidings. The principal rail company—English, Welsh & Scottish Railway, or EWS—appears to have lost interest in the forest product sector. Unless substantial train loads can be provided regularly over long hauls, rail is not a significant option.
I echo what John Home Robertson said about the Forestry Commission probably being an anomaly in a devolved Scotland and that direct accountability would be better. The review group's report makes that clear. Therefore, I am disappointed that the Government is not considering legislative action to change the situation and is continuing on the anomalous course of simply tinkering with administration.
The Government's major contribution to forestry and forest products has been to produce glossy documents that use the products of the forestry industry. The Government must do better.
I thank members for an interesting debate. I think that there is broad agreement among members about Scotland's general direction of travel in relation to forestry. That agreement was emphasised by Alasdair Morgan's speech. However, there are inevitably different views about precisely how we should get there and the weight that we give to different priorities.
I chide Christine Grahame slightly by saying that it is not true that my colleagues and I do not take the forestry industry seriously. I am not sure whether forestry is sexy, as Jamie Stone suggested it should be, but forests can be fun. [Laughter.] I am serious. The glossy document—"Scotland's Trees, Woods and Forests"—to which Alasdair Morgan referred and to the publication of which I plead guilty, states that Scotland's forests have 361 forest walks, 110 picnic sites, 94 cycle trails, 55 horse-riding routes, 14 orienteering routes and so on.
The £4 million investment, which I believe has been welcomed throughout the chamber, will promote the leisure and recreational uses of forests. That will advance Scotland's economy and create jobs in the leisure and recreational industries and should be welcomed by all. In my job, I devote a great deal of my time, energy and commitment to promoting the importance of Scottish forestry in the Scottish economy. I will continue to do so and if the list of visits that arise from the debate on the matter is anything to go by, I will certainly be busy in the coming period.
I think that we all acknowledge that important challenges face Scottish forestry. First, there is the problem that is posed by the low price of timber, to which many members referred. We cannot ignore that, but as members will know, I cannot interfere with international exchange markets. However, we must recognise that forestry is, as Alasdair Morgan said, a long-term business and that, in a real sense, the resources that we commit to forestry now will benefit future generations. Therefore, I want to draw attention to policies on new plant and growth.
We are also keen for forestry to be more closely integrated with other land uses in Scotland. An essential feature of the new administrative arrangements for forestry is that the national office for Scotland will be more closely involved in policy development in related areas of Executive business. Members referred to obvious examples of that and I referred earlier to integrating the activities of the Forestry Commission more closely with the enterprise objectives of promoting jobs in the tourism, leisure and recreation industries.
John Home Robertson talked about effectively abolishing the Forestry Commission. That was an option in the devolution review, but I did not favour it. The proposed changes will bring forestry policy in from the cold, as John Home Robertson wants, through a strengthened national office for Scotland.
Apart from certain aspects of international representation, forestry is fully devolved, but it makes good sense to take advantage of the economies of scale that can come from operating across the larger market of Britain. That is never clearer than in relation to research. Someone—Christine Grahame, I think—suggested wrongly that we could do that without primary legislation. Even if such a move were desirable, legislation would be required both in this Parliament and in Westminster.
When I challenged David Mundell to say how much more the Tories would invest in roads than we are currently investing, the result was silence. That is understandable, because the Tories failed signally to invest in roads during their tenure in office. I take the point that in order to gain value from the product we must ensure that it can get to the market. I also accept that in order to achieve that, we must invest in the roads infrastructure in rural areas. However, I believe firmly that the way to achieve that is to give additional resources to local authorities, so that the local authorities can then engage with the industry in their locality. Through the timber transport groups and through the timber transport forum, progress can be made in devising strategies and plans for getting the product from the forest to the market.
The use of wood fuel in new housing developments was mentioned by Fergus Ewing and others, including Christine Grahame and Rhoda Grant, and I agree firmly with them that the matter is important. George Lyon provided the Parliament with an example of that from his constituency. I can tell members that the Executive is involved in preparing a scheme to encourage the supply of wood fuel from forests to end-users. We are funding a large partnership project to quantify the size and location of the wood fuel that can be obtained from traditional forests and from mill co-product as well as from biomass in towns and transport corridors.
Will the Executive issue advice to local authorities? I know from my meeting with Torren Energy Ltd that, despite receiving help from one place, it had difficulty in getting local authorities to appreciate its ideas.
I will certainly consider that, because it sounds to me like a good idea. I know that the local authorities in my constituency have been involved in discussions that have taken place involving the forest industries cluster, Clydeport and Forestry Enterprise about a new wood fuel power plant, but it might be appropriate to issue more general advice.
Having given Robin Harper that assurance, I will perhaps also chide him somewhat because I made extensive reference in my opening speech to the importance of forests to our natural environment. The Forestry Commission will of course work with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on the new water framework directive. Indeed, if Robin Harper is not already aware of it, he should know that new guidelines on forests and water that reflect the directive are now out for consultation. It is for members to feed into that consultative process.
On the use of wood for power generation, there has been much talk about the prospect of coal-fired power stations being run on coal and wood. If that became a reality, would the minister accept that such a development would create a substantial market for wood that could be provided from Scotland and from south of the border? Does he accept that that would make a huge contribution to the consumption of the wall of wood that we will see shortly?
I accept the general point that the advancement of new biofuel production technologies presents tremendous scope for the use of wood in conjunction with other fuel sources and that that would create great opportunities for the industry.
Before I took that intervention, I was about to say that the new grants scheme to which I referred in my opening speech will offer higher rates for riparian wood, which is wood that is grown alongside rivers and burns.
I cannot take any more interventions, but I will try to deal with the points that Alex Fergusson raised. I recognise that the member reflected the industry's desire for relaxation of the 40-hectare limit for the grants schemes—perhaps that was the point on which he wanted to intervene. We need to be cautious until the forward commitments settle down. We have made strenuous efforts to maintain annual payment rates in the face of falling farm incomes and we have agreed annual limits, which we will relax when it is sensible to do so. A question was also raised about the environmental impact in a certain part of Ayrshire, which I am not in a position to comment on, because if the applicant chooses to appeal they will appeal to Scottish ministers. The grant scheme is being developed in partnership with the industry, environmental bodies and local authorities. The Executive has accepted all their recommendations. It is a Scottish scheme, and it will remain so.
Rhona Brankin asked whether the northern research station was safe and I am happy to announce that it is. The quinquennial review has concluded and there is no intention to relocate that station.
George Lyon raised important points about the positive contribution that the processing industry makes, and the proposed second line at the Caledonian Paper plc factory in Irvine, which is close to my constituency. It goes without saying that we are doing all that we can to help the company to make the case for investment in Scotland, rather than in other parts of Europe that might be in the frame for the investment. My colleague Iain Gray has been in constant contact with the company and has travelled overseas to ensure that Scotland's interests are being reflected.
It is unfortunate that Margaret Ewing is not here, because my final point is about added value and timber. I agree with most, if not all, of what she said. Although little of our timber is exported before processing, members throughout the chamber share the aim that we should endeavour to ensure that as much timber as possible is processed in Scotland so that the value that is added to our timber product is retained in Scotland.