Central Scotland Green Network
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5173, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on the central Scotland green network.
This is an important debate about the contribution that the central Scotland green network can make to the quality of life of people who live in the central belt. I am pleased to be able to set the scene today, and I hope that if any members are as yet unaware of that far-reaching project, they will be a little better informed after the debate.
The network is a visionary and highly ambitious new green space initiative that will deliver an environmental step change for Scotland's central belt. It is a strategic network of woodland and other habitats, active travel routes, green space links, watercourses and waterways. It is also the biggest programme of its kind in Europe, comprising an area four times the size of greater London that stretches from Ayrshire, Inverclyde and Dunbartonshire in the west to Fife and East Lothian in the east. By making a dramatic and lasting improvement to the environment of central Scotland, the green network has the power to transform the lives and livelihoods of more than 3 million people who live there. It will enhance the setting for development and other land uses and will improve opportunities for outdoor recreation and cultural activity.
The network is one of 14 strategic national developments that the Government set out last June in a national planning framework that will guide the country's development to 2030. The key strategic infrastructure that it identifies will enable Scotland to develop its full potential and support the Government's central purpose of sustainable economic growth. That puts the central Scotland green network on a par with, for example, the replacement Forth crossing or the high-speed rail link to London, and we regard it to be as important as those.
The Government's vision is of a healthier and greener Scotland. We want strong, resilient and supportive communities that live in well-designed, sustainable places. We want the people of those communities to value and enjoy their natural environments and to live longer, healthier lives. The green network's vision is to help to deliver those outcomes and transform central Scotland through significant improvements in environmental quality, woodland cover and recreational opportunities.
That transformation will make central Scotland more attractive not only for the 3 million residents but for its visitors, and particularly for its investors. By creating and linking high-quality, accessible green space, the CSGN will enhance biodiversity, help to mitigate climate change, support sustainable economic growth and improve the quality of life of most of Scotland's population. By substantially increasing woodland cover and improving green space, the CSGN will transform landscapes for the region's communities and bring back to life the area's legacy of derelict and vacant land. Furthermore, creating a green network will complement improvements in rail, road and communications infrastructure in the area. In short, the network will make central Scotland a more attractive place in which to live and do business.
Attracting new businesses to central Scotland is particularly important in these economically challenging times, because high-value, high-tech businesses are attracted to high-quality places. We believe that a green network will give the area a competitive edge and that delivering a better environment in central Scotland will help it to compete economically at a European and, indeed, a global level. A successful central Scotland green network has the power to deliver several of the national strategic objectives and make the area healthier, stronger, smarter, greener and wealthier.
The initiative will start by co-ordinating and building on the good work that is already being done by existing green space initiatives, which include the Glasgow and Clyde valley green network, the Central Scotland Forest Trust, the Edinburgh and Lothians forest habitat network, the strategic work of Greenspace Scotland and a large number of more local initiatives. The Labour Party is right to point out that the initiative will require an extensive amount of partnership working across all levels of government and out into the private and voluntary sectors as well.
The initiative will also build on strategic infrastructure developments, such as the millennium canal link and the Falkirk helix. The Edinburgh and Lothians forest habitat network is creating a multifunctional green network linking town and country, which includes proposals for Roslin glen and the Pentland hills. The central Scotland forest and the Forth and Clyde and Union canals are helping to transform the environment between Glasgow and Edinburgh. The Glasgow and Clyde valley green network partnership is taking forward a green space enhancement programme, which includes areas in the Clyde waterfront, Clyde gateway, Gartcosh-Gartloch and Ravenscraig. There is also potential for substantial habitat restoration and enhancement through the Clyde gateway and the Commonwealth games legacy.
The 19 local authorities in the area will obviously play an important role in, for example, promoting open space networks, facilitating countryside access and developing core path networks. The Scottish forestry strategy contains a commitment to expand and improve the quality of woodlands around settlements and to improve landscape amenity and recreational opportunities. As well as bringing vacant and derelict land back into beneficial use, well-sited woodlands will improve biodiversity and the resilience of the natural environment, helping it to adapt to climate change and absorb CO2. Improvements to large-scale ecological networks and habitat connections, including wetlands, will counter fragmentation and assist species migration. Effectively, the green network is not just for humans but for wildlife, which will be able to use the network as well.
Developing strategic footpaths and cycleways will contribute to more sustainable transport networks and expand recreational opportunities beside and between population centres. In that way, the network will help to encourage active travel and healthier lifestyles—a park-and-stride approach to commuting, as it were.
On improving recreational capabilities, does the minister envisage the CSGN integrating with established regional parks, such as Clyde Muirshiel and the Pentlands?
I hope that all existing infrastructure, including regional parks, will become part and parcel of the CSGN. We will look for cross-linking where, and with whom, that is possible. There is no reason why the regional parks, where they intersect with the CSGN, should not be part of it.
The main stakeholder bodies are already working together through an interim steering group that is led by Forestry Commission Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage, and supported by the Central Scotland Forest Trust. I have asked officials in those bodies to assemble a work plan that will set out the way forward. We will launch that early next year. A high-level executive board comprising members of the representative bodies is being tasked to take forward the next phase. A chair is being recruited, and I expect to appoint a successful candidate early next year. I intend to take a pro-active role in the new board to ensure that the work translates to real actions on the ground.
Can the minister tell me whether British Waterways is involved in the CSGN, given its network of canals in the central belt?
The canal network and all waterways will be part and parcel of the CSGN. I know that British Waterways has its own ambitious plans. I had an interesting meeting with representatives of that organisation, at which they exhibited their level of ambition. I certainly want to encourage that where possible, because it will bring enormous benefit to the areas in which the waterways are located.
We will ensure that all local authorities in the CSGN are involved. In order to do that, I will host a gathering next year of all relevant councillors. I imagine that it will be quite a large gathering, since they will be from 19 local authorities. However, it is important that they are all brought on board and are embedded in the process. Volunteer bodies, charities and not-for-profit organisations also have a key role to play in helping to turn the CSGN into a reality. In that regard, I intend to host a third sector summit next summer.
As members have heard, a lot is already happening. Of course, the current economic reality means that we will have to make our existing resources go as far as possible. Much can be achieved through more efficient co-ordination and use of existing initiatives and their resources, including the Scotland rural development plan; the smarter choices, smarter places project; regeneration funding; the Forestry Commission's woods in and around towns programme and challenge funding; the repositioning of the national forest estate; the Clyde gateway; and, of course, the 2014 Commonwealth games legacy activity. I hope that just the mention of all those highlights the utter absurdity of the Liberal Democrat amendment.
It will be apparent by now that the CSGN is a cross-sectoral, cross-departmental initiative. The department for rural affairs and the environment clearly has an important co-ordinating role to play. However, as I said at an SNH event here in Holyrood last week, a development of the scale and ambition of the CSGN cannot be achieved by one department alone.
The minister talked about the absurdity of our amendment, but it simply asks the Scottish Government to list the financial commitments that it is making for the CSGN, which must come with a cost. That is all we are asking about. Why does the minister say that that is absurd?
Because it asks for that information for the entire national planning framework—all 14 projects. It wants the detail in six weeks for projects that might last 30 years. I feel sorry for the Labour Party having had to endure that kind of absurdity in coalition for eight years.
In order for the strategic national development to be fully successful, it will require the good will, commitment and contribution of colleagues from other departments. I was adamant at the outset that the CSGN should not be seen solely as an environmental initiative. Principal responsibility certainly sits with me and my department, but as a testament to the wide-ranging nature of the benefits that will be gained, the Minister for Housing and Communities, Alex Neil, will close this debate. However, that could just as easily have been done by the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, the Minister for Public Health and Sport or any one of a number of others. We all need to work towards making the CSGN vision a reality.
I have asked my officials to intensify engagement across a variety of portfolios. I shall pursue ministerial-level contacts accordingly. For any colleagues who are interested, both the Forestry Commission and SNH are happy to host site visits to show members what is already happening and the scale of what needs to be done in their local areas.
I exhort all members with an interest and locus in the CSGN initiative to work with us in helping to deliver it. We all need to focus on delivering tangible benefits that will improve the environment, economic potential and the lives of people in central Scotland for generations to come.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises and supports the significant contribution that the Central Scotland Green Network can make to the quality of life of the three million people living in the central belt, not just through environmental and social benefits, such as improving habitat networks, enhancing landscapes, mitigating climate change, improving health and wellbeing and stimulating educational and cultural activity, outdoor recreation and community involvement, but also through increasing economic benefits, such as business development, urban regeneration and derelict land restoration.
Labour has long argued for the establishment of a network of green corridors across central Scotland. It was one of our manifesto promises at the previous election. I welcome the opportunity today for us to help shape the new network. I believe that it is a natural development of the groundwork that we laid over the past decade in, for example, the woods in and around towns initiative and the development of urban forest in central Scotland.
My colleagues on the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee have this year strongly supported the principle of developing and adding to the NPF a national, landscape-scale ecosystem and land management project. The Scottish Wildlife Trust and RSPB Scotland are right to argue that the issue of scale is important in order to support diverse wildlife opportunities and create healthy biodiversity. Given the success of similar examples across the United Kingdom, it is important that we do not fall behind the superb best practice that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has been involved in elsewhere in the UK.
As Scotland has a long tradition of urban regeneration and the restoration of landscapes that were damaged by heavy or extractive industries, the principle of environmental justice runs through our values. Ensuring that communities that have experienced environmental degradation are given the chance for investment in a much more attractive landscape and quality of life has long been a priority. Clearly, evidence suggests that investment in landscape and environmental infrastructure is good for economic development. Such investment has the capacity to transform and regenerate many areas, such as former mining communities whose economic core was ripped out of them. Our most disadvantaged communities present some really big opportunities. That should be part of the philosophy behind the massive habitat network opportunity that is being developed through the CSGN.
What is really exciting and novel about the central Scotland green network is the scale of ambition that it represents. Roseanna Cunningham has outlined the sheer size of the geography that it will encompass. However, as well as considering the economic benefits that such a large network could bring, we should focus on the social benefits—such as enabling people to gain the health opportunities of recreation through walking, cycling and nature interpretation—and the fact that the network will improve the quality of people's everyday environment. Rather than being seen as an add-on, the network should be thought of as being linked into people's everyday lives. In light of some recent interesting research that suggest that proximity to green space is good for people's health, the green network can link into the whole environmental justice agenda, which should be at the heart of the network's philosophy.
As Ramblers Scotland has highlighted, the CSGN provides an opportunity to create a network of paths and cycle routes that link people with home and work, connect communities, and provide safer options for walking and cycling. Given Roseanna Cunningham's comments about every department having its role to play, let me highlight as an example what should happen with our railway network. There should be good, high-quality, safe, secure parking for cycles at every rail station in central Scotland. We know from the statistics that huge numbers of people drive comparatively short distances to work. The green network surely provides an opportunity to make practical changes to people's daily lives.
Indeed, the network provides us with a radical opportunity. For much of the previous century, central Scotland was transformed—in many ways for the good—by human activity and urbanisation. In transforming our communities and landscapes in the context of climate change, the network offers an opportunity to reconnect habitats for wildlife and to support biodiversity, because the network will have sufficient scale and coherence to make a big difference. Given the projections on climate change and its impact on species, we need to give species opportunities to grow and survive. That must be at the heart of the network.
Existing examples of good practice on the ground can be developed and extended. Those include the work that Edinburgh and Lothians Greenspace Trust does in my area, the investment that is being made in our canals, the developments in forestry that are taking place both in central Scotland and further west, and the superb work that is being undertaken by Glasgow and Clyde valley green network. Those examples indicate what could be done when the network is put together. However, it is critical to consider what can be done in future. For example, what are the opportunities for the Antonine wall? We need to go beyond just having a clever rebranding and ensure that the CSGN means more than just the renaming of an area.
Effective co-ordination will be an issue, which is why our amendment highlights the need for partnership working. A host of organisations will need to work together effectively if the network is to do more than just look at the investment that is already being made. Therefore, the Scottish Government needs to answer questions on how the network's designation in the NPF will be underpinned with organisational and financial support, what analysis it has undertaken of the effectiveness of existing structures and how they might be changed, and how the influence of the different partners can be brought to bear to ensure that the network does more than what is already being done.
The role of local government is key. Scottish National Party ministers need to do more than just make an allocation and tick a box in the NPF. The investment in the CSGN does not even begin to compare with the levels of investment that are being made in other NPF projects. We need to consider what each local authority can do to bring to bear resource and activity. Will the Scottish Government renegotiate the single outcome agreements—perhaps the Minister for Housing and Communities can deal with that in his summing up—in the light of such a key project? If the green network is really to be a national project, what implications will it have for each of the 19 local authorities involved? Given that we already have some really good strategic partnerships—I refer to the Glasgow and Clyde valley strategic development planning authority, the SESplan authority and the Ayrshire joint planning steering group—what will happen with the delivery of local development plans on the ground and how will investment be targeted through local authorities?
Tackling the resources and energies that are needed to transform some of our most degraded landscapes is another crucial issue. How will the work of different Government agencies be tied together? The Minister for Environment referred to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Forestry Commission in her opening remarks, but how will their input be co-ordinated? How will leadership take place? I welcome the fact that Roseanna Cunningham will host a couple of events, but what day-to-day work will build up to those events? We need to hear about not just the headlines but the everyday work that will underpin the network's success.
In addition, a host of environmental charities and voluntary organisations have energy and expertise, as do our local communities. In his winding-up speech, perhaps the Minister for Housing and Communities can say how those will be brought together to influence and direct the network around their own communities. We have been given the headlines, but we have not so far been told how the vision will be tied together. Detail on the strategy is crucial.
I am also interested in hearing from the minister what pump-priming money will be provided by the Scottish Government. Environmental non-governmental organisations tell us that no new money seems to be coming to the network. Given its huge scale, the network will need new pump priming if it is to make a difference.
What opportunities will come from the new paths that will be created? Ramblers Scotland has asked about the practicalities of that investment on the ground. We are told that no new money will be provided for that project. Perhaps the minister can clarify that in his closing remarks.
Given the cuts that are being made in voluntary and charitable organisations as a result of cuts in Scottish Government money, what will happen to the capacity of the different organisations that are involved? Networking cannot be done for free and on the hoof. There must be a co-ordinated effort.
Another issue that has been raised with me is the lack of ability to co-ordinate activity in the eastern end of the network. How does the minister believe that that issue should be addressed?
How much money will come from the SRDP, in particular for the forestry grants that will be made available within the network? We know that we are massively undershooting our forestry targets year on year. The network provides a key opportunity in some of our most disadvantaged communities to link up urban habitats and to create opportunities. What will be done in practice?
Finally, as we are in the midst of a recession, I make two practical suggestions that I ask ministers to take on board. First, the network surely provides a fantastic opportunity to recruit unemployed young people to work on specific projects. We know that unemployment among young people is shooting up. The network could provide on their doorsteps opportunities to work in a practical way that could be mentioned on their CV. Secondly, spending in the early days should focus on those projects that bring multiple benefits to local communities. We need to build the profile of communities in the network locally, get local people involved and join up some of the investment to tackle the recession. We would like to see joined-up work on the ground and early investment. Could the network have a challenge fund so that local bodies could bid for projects in surrounding communities? We would like ministers to take forward those practical opportunities. I would like to hear the minister's comments on those when he winds up.
The central Scotland green network is a national project that needs national funding, but it also needs community buy-in. We have a fantastic opportunity to tie the two things together to help to build Scotland out of the recession in a way that ties in investment in our environmental networks. I would like to see some answers from the minister when he winds up.
I move amendment S3M-5173.1, to insert at end:
", and believes that there is a need for cooperation among the Scottish Government, local authorities and agencies and groups working in the area to ensure that maximum opportunities are delivered from the network."
The designation of the central Scotland green network as a national project is to be welcomed and will, I hope, presage a significant and sustained emphasis on improving the natural environment of the 3 million or so people who live within the 19 local authority areas that will be covered by the network. Substantial increases in woodland cover and improvements to green space and outdoor recreation are proposed, with the aim of improving landscape settings for towns and cities, including bringing back to life areas that face the post-industrial legacy of derelict and vacant land.
The network's inclusion in NPF 2 indicates that the Government considers the economic, health and social benefits of improving the landscape setting of towns and villages to be of national importance. However, the CSGN is quite different from the other national projects in the national planning framework, and will be difficult to deliver coherently and consistently. That is why I welcome the setting up of the partnership group and look forward to the production of its action plan by the end of this year or the beginning of next.
The initiative is to be led by Forestry Commission Scotland and SNH, yet FCS has noted:
"In the absence of new funding sources becoming available, action and efforts on the CSGN will need to focus on providing a compelling vision through a clear and effective strategic plan. This may create some momentum in the short-term but in order to maintain impetus beyond the current year, we will need to find some additional resource—for example through a challenge fund which might be used to exert leverage on resources and secure commitment from local authorities and other sources. Our current assessment is that this would need to be something of the order of £5 million a year and that that might lever an equal amount from other sources."
FCS also said:
"Elevation to National Development status raises expectation. Without additional resources it will be more difficult to deliver quickly something transformational on the ground."
That is why I have lodged my amendment today. I seek clarity from the Government on what its intentions are. The minister's comments are surprising. She is surely not telling us that the Government sets its budget without regard to its strategic plans. All that I am asking for is some information.
It is increasingly evident that good-quality green space contributes to boosting physical activity and mental health, attracting investment and creating places where people want to live. Urban green space can also help to mitigate the impacts of flooding, air pollution and high temperatures, as well as supporting wildlife. It can create an environment that encourages people to choose active lifestyles, including walking and cycling, and encourages children to play outside.
Greenspace Scotland's first report on the state of Scotland's green space gave a snapshot of progress in 20 out of 32 of our local authorities. It is an interesting report that will provide a good baseline for measurement in the future. However, it acknowledges that the full benefits of green space are contingent on how it is used and valued by people.
Since 2004, Greenspace Scotland has commissioned three surveys of public opinion on urban green space, which have examined the use of green space, public attitudes about it and people's perceptions of local spaces. They show a rise in the use of local green space since 2004, primarily for physical activity and relaxation. In the most recent survey, 63 per cent of respondents said that they used their local green space once a week or more often, which was up from 49 per cent in 2004. Half of those polled could walk to their local green space within five minutes, but that dropped to 39 per cent in more deprived areas.
The Scottish household survey in 2007-08 also included a section on green space. It found that people's level of satisfaction with their green space was positively associated with how they felt about their neighbourhood overall. It also revealed a connection between green space and health, with self-reported health being 10 per cent higher in areas with a safe and pleasant environment.
There is no doubt that good-quality green space aids personal health and wellbeing and contributes to tackling climate change. It will also help us to adapt to some of the impacts of climate change, and, importantly, it contributes to community wellbeing through the creation of a sense of belonging.
Although there are many examples of good practice—at the local authority planning level and from the many trusts and organisations that champion the environment, such as green space trusts, SNH, the woods in and around towns programme, the SWT and the Ramblers Association—far too many communities are surrounded by wasteland or barren stretches of green deserts. There has been a drive for improvement in housing stock, but the setting in which that housing has been situated has not always been improved. Planning decisions have placed too much emphasis on the built environment and have paid scant attention to securing good breathing space between developments. At the moment, central Scotland has a patchwork of green rather than a network.
Greenspace Scotland also asked about barriers to increasing use of green space, and many respondents highlighted concerns about maintenance, lack of facilities and safety. Those issues must be tackled by the CSGN. I would like the CSGN to ensure that communities are involved all the way through the process, and I ask ministers to outline how they envisage them being represented on the network's board. It is not always the case that communities are involved in the design and management of their local spaces, but when they are it can help to build a strong sense of belonging. Placemaking projects have demonstrated that. Taking into account communities' views from the outset should ensure that the new green spaces meet the needs of all users, and should address safety concerns.
With the growing pressure on council budgets over the next few years, proper consideration must also be given to arrangements for the maintenance of space that is created. I note that the NPF action plan anticipates that, by the end of 2010, there will be a report on the preferred management structures and processes to safeguard the green network into the future. That is essential.
The CSGN is an unusual project to be included in the NPF, but its designation as a national development means that we can expect a level of co-ordination and intervention on a scale that has been previously unknown. That is welcome.
I move amendment S3M-5173.2, to insert at end:
"; notes the view of Forestry Commission Scotland that, without additional resources to invest in the Central Scotland Green Network, it will be difficult to deliver transformational change on the ground, and calls on the Scottish Government to clarify within the next six weeks its funding and delivery intentions for all the national developments in the National Planning Framework for Scotland 2 and how they link to the Scottish Government's current expenditure proposals."
As ever, I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer. I welcome this debate and the Government motion on the central Scotland green network.
The recently launched green network offers a chance to regenerate and reinvigorate a large area of our central belt, and, as we have heard, it could benefit the substantial proportion of Scotland's population who live within the project's boundary. It is certainly an ambitious project, stretching from Ayrshire in the west right through to East Lothian and Fife, and including 19 local authority areas. It is very satisfying to see this concept—which was initially instigated by Ian Lang when he was the Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland—coming to fruition.
The network is currently at a fairly early and formative stage, and it is vital that we seize the chance to ensure that it reaches its full potential for the sake of the environment and the Scottish people. I am sure that the minister will agree that we have a lot of work ahead to make the network a success, but there is a great appetite to achieve that. The economic, environmental and social benefits of the network will be wide ranging, and as part of a well-managed and focused initiative, those benefits will improve lives and livelihoods across the central belt and the whole of Scotland.
The concept of strong, sustainable growth, which is a key aim of the central Scotland green network, is one that the Conservatives have always supported. We believe that preserving the environment must not be seen as something that conflicts with economic growth. Ultimately, only sustainable growth will guarantee prosperity for ourselves and for future generations. Further, in terms of supporting economic growth, it can only be of benefit to central Scotland to make the area a more attractive place in which to live and do business. Making the most of derelict land and regenerating urban areas will also help to reinvigorate local areas and complement improvements in transport and infrastructure, which will ensure that central Scotland builds on its reputation as a competitive and sought-after place in which to do business.
The network could aid in strengthening and supporting existing regeneration programmes in central Scotland by securing a sustainable, long-term future for disadvantaged areas and by better meeting the needs of the existing community, attracting new residents and helping to improve people's quality of life.
In addition, the network can bring a range of health benefits, with more opportunities to access high-quality green spaces across the central belt for recreation purposes. I am sure that members will welcome the fact that that will offer people more chances for increased outdoor physical activity, particularly as we try to tackle problems such as childhood obesity and mental health issues, as well as trying generally to improve wellbeing.
Of course, numerous existing local green networks, such as the Ayrshire green network, offer residents and visitors a chance to explore outdoor areas of interest and enjoy the natural environment on a more local scale. Projects such as the raised bogs habitat action plan and East Ayrshire woodlands initiative to expand and enhance native and amenity woodlands in Ayrshire already provide opportunities to expand habitat for wildlife, reduce or reverse biodiversity decline and facilitate adaptation to the effects of climate change.
I believe that the whole of Ayrshire should be part of the central Scotland green network, and that the remaining part of South Ayrshire that is not already in the area should be included. I know that South Ayrshire Council would welcome further discussions with Ms Cunningham or Mr Neil in that regard.
However, first, we must make full use of our existing local green networks. One of the benefits of the central Scotland green network is that it can help to identify current gaps in local provision. Where needs and pressures are greatest, it will be possible to suggest opportunities and priorities for improvement.
To ensure the success of the central Scotland green network, it is vital that it is managed in a joined-up and coherent way. It is essential that it has strong and focused leadership in order to achieve its crucial aims, such as sustainable growth and economic regeneration. We therefore urge the minister to ensure that the process of setting up a new board and appointing a chair is completed as soon as possible.
Conservatives welcome the chance to create the network but—particularly at a time of recession—we are aware of the cost implications and of the need to ensure that the project delivers its returns, which will only be achievable if it is operated as a tightly run ship.
Conservatives note the concerns that were raised by Simon Rennie, the chief executive of the Central Scotland Forest Trust, when he stated at the "Green Networks: Potential for Central Scotland" conference on 30 September that local action and networks can help to deliver the wider aims of the central Scotland green network, but local action and networks alone are not enough to run a truly successful larger scheme, as we have a situation where action is occurring in "discrete boxes". He suggested that we need a more co-ordinated approach across the whole network area to allow the network to realise its full potential. I urge the minister to take those points on board, and I endorse Sarah Boyack's comments in that regard.
As the interim steering group moves towards the creation of a first-draft work plan for the network, which it is likely to produce in the coming year, I wish its members every success in their task, and I look forward to scrutinising the plan when it comes before the Parliament for consultation.
Conservatives believe that quality of life and environmental issues must be at the heart of politics, and the central Scotland green network offers us a tremendous opportunity to put that vision into action.
I am delighted to speak in the debate, not as someone who lives in the central belt now, but as someone who was brought up in Glasgow. In the street where we lived, we could go to the top of the hill and see the Campsie fells in one direction, and Castlemilk and the braes of Cathkin to the south. [Interruption.] It is a fact that people aspire to live in a landscape in which they feel that there is green space, and green space needs to be closer to where people live than it was to where I lived in the east end of Glasgow.
We can begin to bring together some experience from a Highland perspective that can help the central belt to turn the huge CSGN project into a carbon sink that will also be a lung and an inspiration to people who live in the area. [Interruption.]
I hope that we will, by the end of the debate, agree that the CSGN is a long-term project. It is difficult to place immediate emphasis, as the Liberal amendment does, on the money that will be available for forestry and so on. We are talking, in a time of recession, about problems that have been created by the lack of planting not only in the public sector, but in the private sector. Where are the people who should be planting forests on all the land in the central belt that is not owned by public bodies? We should be asking that question in the debate.
Should we also be asking questions about companies that clear land without gaining permission, and take forests, woods and trees away?
Indeed we should; that issue features in the national planning strategy document, paragraph 93 of which says that if land is cleared, it has to be replanted, and that the situation must be heavily monitored. That absolutely applies to derelict land.
In recent years, I have spent—
I ask the member to excuse me while I make this point.
In the past couple of years, I have travelled along the lang wang towards Lanark in the Clyde valley, and from Lanark to the north. I recognise that we have fantastic views and open spaces in the central belt, and new forests that are beginning to seed. We must enthuse people about the natural environment, as we have done in the Highlands. The area around Aviemore, where the ospreys have returned to Loch Garten, is one of the rural areas of the Highlands most heavily used by people. People and wildlife mix perfectly well in many circumstances, and, in order to make the green lung work, we must let people know that they can be part of the natural environment.
People who live in various parts of the huge central Scotland corridor already know those things, but we need to lift up our eyes a little more to see our surroundings and recognise that the area is a great spiritual sink as well as a benefit to the environment.
Rob Gibson referred to my amendment; is he not interested to know how the CSGN programme, which the minister said was the biggest of its kind in Europe, will be funded and delivered?
I am certainly interested in seeing the project develop. However, people who want money to be spent should put their suggestions to the appropriate committees during consideration of the budget, and we have not heard such proposals. At a time of tight finances for the Government, we need to debate the issue in real terms. I asked earlier what the private bodies, which are partners in the project, are doing; we want to see more of that.
In order to humanise the landscape, we should consider something like the west highland way. If we are to link parts of the corridor together, we need stories about well-known personalities such as Colin Montgomerie, who is currently walking the west highland way to raise money for a charity. If people can walk from the Ayrshire coast towards East Lothian, they will begin to get a sense that the corridor exists. At the human level, I hope that we will aim to complete that part of the project early on.
Does Rob Gibson agree that the Ayrshire coastal path networks and the proposed St Ninian's network would be a good starting point for the national network of pathways across central Scotland to which he refers?
Yes, indeed—I agree that that area in the west is an excellent example of what can be achieved right across the central belt.
I hope that our discussions will not just involve plannerspeak. We need plans and partners, and people who view things in those terms, but if we are to enthuse the public about taking part in the project, we need to raise high-profile issues—as I have done in my speech—to humanise the potential of that fantastic stretch of country across the centre of Scotland.
I remind members that they are not supposed to have their BlackBerrys switched on in the chamber. It would be a good idea for members not to bring them in at all.
It is a great pleasure to be able to participate in the debate, especially as it is led on the Labour side of the chamber by my old—and very good—friend and colleague Sarah Boyack, who has, as I know from experience, been a green champion all her life, since long before she entered Parliament. Members will have heard her keenness and enthusiasm for the subject from the articulate and able way in which she introduced the debate.
I am pleased that Roseanna Cunningham and Alex Neil are the two ministers who are dealing with the issue, as they are, in my view, two of the most able and articulate members of the Scottish National Party. I am glad that they have at last managed to elbow their way into Alex Salmond's beleaguered Administration.
I look forward in particular to Alex Neil's reply to the debate. The thing that worries me most about the subject that we are discussing today is that it is high on rhetoric, but very low on reality and delivery. That is why I support and agree with the Liberal Democrat amendment, to which Alison McInnes has spoken so ably today.
I cannot see any finance. Roseanna Cunningham said, in her eloquent introduction to the debate, that we will be
"healthier, stronger, smarter, greener and wealthier."
I look forward to all those things. When she launched the campaign publicly, she said that it would be the biggest in Europe and "a step change". Those are huge ambitions, and I agree with and support them, but where is the reality? Where is the beef, as Alison McInnes rightly wants to know?
Forestry bodies are getting no extra money, and local authorities and non-departmental public bodies are being squeezed. I do not see how the Government will be able to deliver, unless it makes the issue a priority.
The rather gauche SNP candidate for Glasgow North East blurted out that the Government was going to spend £9 million on a referendum. Any body that that money funded would be based on unlawful legislation, and there would be no purpose to it at all. It would be a total waste of money, which could be used for this—
It could be used for Michael Martin's pension.
I am sure that the professor will have an opportunity later on to blurble on—
He is taking lessons from you.
I yield to the master.
I ask members not to intervene from a sedentary position.
Members can intervene from a standing position, rather than a sedentary position.
The £9 million would be better spent on the CSGN programme—I would support that.
That is my main concern; I will move on to my subsidiary concerns. My first reinforces Sarah Boyack's point that councils need to be involved. We have heard that there will be a gathering of council leaders—everything is called a gathering these days; it seems to be the SNP's in word. I welcome the announcement of that gathering, but we need to know how councils will be involved in practical terms. When Alex Neil replies to the debate, I hope that he will say how they are going to be involved—in partnership, to use the word that was used earlier.
My second subsidiary point is about the boundary. Looking at the map, I completely agree with John Scott—I never thought that I would say that, but on this occasion, I agree with him. I will say a few words on behalf of my good colleague Cathy Jamieson, who at this very moment is climbing in Nepal. She is doing the sort of things that I ought to be doing—walking and exercising. As far as the boundary is concerned, I hope that Alex Neil, who has an interest in the matter, will confirm in his reply that the whole of Ayrshire will be included. That is one of the options, and I hope that it will be agreed to. I am sure that, like me, he would want Mauchline, Auchinleck, Catrine and Cumnock to be involved. Those old mining areas desperately need such development because many of them remain derelict. Just to get Alex Neil completely on board, I add that Dalmellington and—yes, indeed—Patna should be involved as well.
My third subsidiary point is about the Lothians, which do not get a fair deal from the funding that is available. Glasgow, the Clyde area and the central Scotland forest get substantial grants, but east central Scotland gets relatively little. I hope that that will be examined carefully when future funding is made available.
A moment ago, the member argued that he did not know anything about the funding. Now, he is complaining that the Lothians do not get enough money. He cannot have it both ways.
I was talking about the historic funding from the previous Administration, and pointing out that the existing funding is not enough. We need additional funding if the reality is to come anywhere near the rhetoric that we heard earlier from the Minister for Environment.
I know that I have been accused of having some kind of vendetta against Alex Salmond. Well, there might be a bit of truth in that, but as far as the green network is concerned, if we are to discuss the reality of climate change and get people to change their habits and walk and cycle, ministers need to take a lead. Again and again, I see the First Minister travelling from Bute house to the Parliament by car. He used to travel from Linlithgow to Edinburgh by car even though there is a perfectly good train service. Let us get out and about and use public transport or walk. Let us set an example to the people. Ministers should be first, and the First Minister should be first among equals, in setting that example.
This is indeed an important debate. Other interesting things might be taking place elsewhere in Scotland at the moment, but for the people who live in the corridor, the central Scotland green network must be the most important item on the agenda.
I will speak particularly about Central Scotland in the political sense, as defined by the Boundary Commission for Scotland, rather than about the wider area. Historically, many communities across the central belt have been generationally damaged by our industrial processes. Sad as it may be, those industrial processes have now changed, moved on and closed down, but in their wake they left levels of dereliction and abandoned and contaminated land with which the people in those communities continue to live. If the ambitious network plan is properly resourced and delivered, it can only be good for those people.
Previous speakers such as Alison McInnes and Sarah Boyack have already espoused eloquently the importance of improving personal wellbeing in those communities, which have at their heart elements of some of the worst personal health. In that regard, the plans must be a good thing.
When I look at Central Scotland as a Scottish Parliament region, I see communities such as Motherwell and Hamilton and vast tracts of ground that are eminently suitable for greening, but that will require resources. I look at the money that British Waterways has invested in the millennium link and the Caledonian canal—some £320 million—and the vast improvement in that environment.
However more important from my perspective is the work of the small community groups throughout the region that are delivering for their own environments. I think about their commitment to local cycleways and pathways. I also think about the plans for the Cumbernauld community park, and about Cumbernauld glen, which is owned by the Scottish Wildlife Trust. The SWT owns some 273 hectares of land in the Cumbernauld area alone. That is a vast resource, but it needs to be used as part of a co-ordinated programme. Otherwise, people will feel isolated. I think that it was Sarah Boyack who said that people must take ownership. Too often, when the communities' plight has been recognised, they have been visited from on high by external experts who do things to them and for them. It is critical that, as the network grows, the contribution that the communities can make is recognised by non-governmental agencies and local authorities.
We also need to find a way in which to counter the somewhat difficult situations in which local groups almost always find themselves when they take forward environmental plans. For example, I have had representations from a group in Bothwell, which is in the region that I represent. It has identified a derelict piece of land for which it proposes local allotments, a market garden and other improvements to the environment. Unfortunately, the planning regulations are such that sportscotland has objected, because part of the ground on which the group intends to develop that green element was used—some 20 years ago, I think—as a football field. As a statutorily notified organisation, sportscotland has registered an objection, which has brought the whole community's efforts on the project to a grinding halt.
That is just one example. Time and again, in different regions and communities, we find that local initiatives are hampered by contradictory work that is done by local authorities. I appreciate that the minister will be unable to comment on the example that I cited because it is likely to end up on his desk for a decision, so I am not looking for an answer as far as that is concerned, but I cite it as an example of something that ministers and the 19 local authorities that are involved must address. We must not allow that dichotomy to affect local ambition.
I want to add to what Sarah Boyack said about the involvement of young people. A couple of weeks ago, I spent some time with North Lanarkshire Council's restorative justice team, which is doing some really good work with offenders serving community sentences. There needs to be an amalgamation of projects, involving not just the voluntary sector and the statutory sector but other agencies such as the restorative justice team. They must work together to give everyone ownership of the project if it is to be a success.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of Roseanna Cunningham's motion on the central Scotland green network, which includes a little bit of my vast constituency in Fife. The project offers many opportunities to develop greenways, woodland and waterways.
I am old enough to have been one of those who protested against the stupid closure of the Forth and Clyde canal to navigation in 1962. As a ship canal that sailing ships could sail on without having to demast, it would have had enormous attraction today. It was closed because at the time people thought that canals were old fashioned and that we could do without them; it was one of those catching up with modernity things that, unfortunately, happened all too frequently in the 1960s.
The prospect of environmental degradation is a real and present danger and might bring tolerable human existence to an end within the next century. However, it is not a new threat. We can go back to Mary Shelley, who in her novels "Frankenstein" and "The Last Man" wrote—from an experience in Scotland, in fact—about science getting back at us. Indeed, she was writing at the beginning of what Patrick Geddes, who I think stands behind all this to a great extent, called the paleotechnic age, in which we had harnessed the power of carbon but did not know how to control it. The age effectively started with the first steamboats on the Clyde. Geddes lies behind this admirable scheme which, along with our airports and motorways, adds to our commercial attractiveness.
One of Scotland's most innovatory successes is Rockstar Games, which sits not half a mile from here in Leith Street. Its "Grand Theft Auto" series, which I believe has reached number 4, has sold 70 million copies worldwide and earned more than £500 million. That extremely ingenious series portrays a highly technologised and motorised universe—parallel to the one that we are trying to mend—in which destruction and greed are the only motivating forces. It is a Hobbesian world in which life is "nasty, brutish, and short". In an interview, one of the cybergeniuses of Leith Street said:
"I make lots of wee people and then kill them."
I have to say that the game itself is quite hypnotic.
I wonder whether the success of that series is one of the reasons for the appalling percentage of people in Scotland who cycle. Statistics released earlier this week that I believe are crucial to this debate show that 2 per cent of our commuters cycle to work, compared with 18 per cent in Denmark. Do we actually prefer manipulating our games consoles to navigating a bike round packed streets?
Is the member, like me, disturbed at the number of young children who play the game that he has mentioned, and does he agree that it would be far better for their health and wellbeing if they were out accessing green spaces?
The member makes my point for me.
Although schemes such as the Scottish green network are important, we have to acknowledge their limitations. Afforestation in central Scotland will consume 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, but each year our industrial plant emits 32 million tonnes, which means that those trees will catch up with not even a quarter of the increase in pollution. As a result, we need to considerably alter our expectations and, indeed, the whole notion of how we might transform our lives.
That said, if video games were orientated towards tackling environmental problems and raising awareness of the technologies that we need to overcome the world's problems, they might be of great benefit. Perhaps the Minister for Environment should have a word with the cybergeniuses of Leith Street and find out whether, for a couple of video games, they could turn their swords into ploughshares. That might help a great deal.
I conclude with a quotation from what was the greatest Scottish novel of the late 20th century, Alasdair Gray's "Lanark", which is all about the menacing future of the industrial city in a period of environmental collapse. Members might remember that towards the end of the novel Glasgow, or Unthank, is nearly overwhelmed by a tsunami, but is reborn into an eco-future. At one point, Lanark's cheek is
"touched by something moving in the wind, a black twig with pointed little … grey-green buds … He looked sideways and saw the sun coming up golden behind a laurel bush, light blinking, space dancing among the shifting leaves."
That image of rebirth—through trees, no less—is a marvellous vision of the sort of green future that Roseanna Cunningham is envisaging. It is also the only future that we have, and we dare not lose it.
Like other members, I am pleased to take part in the debate. I say that not only as an MSP with a central belt constituency but as a member of a party that has traditionally claimed ownership of the whole idea behind the debate. After all, Scottish Labour has long advocated the establishment of a network of green corridors covering central Scotland.
The environment in which we live is important to our personal health and wellbeing and its quality is crucial to the health, wellbeing and prosperity of our communities. The founders of the central Scotland green network have given the Government an opportunity to work with local authorities and other agencies to strengthen efforts to extend and protect green spaces throughout the central belt and to turn ambitious plans into reality. The minister has said as much and I acknowledge that she is taking things forward in a series of meetings.
However, I make a plea for priority to be given to old industrial towns and areas of high deprivation where, as a member has already pointed out, vacant and derelict land remains a detrimental legacy of our industrial past. Regeneration and restoration are necessary for aesthetic purposes, the feel-good factor and, more important, the attraction of much-needed investment. I am pleased to say that, in my Coatbridge and Chryston constituency, a number of landmarks have grown out of regeneration, developed and maintained thanks to North Lanarkshire Council's commitment and effort. I was heartened to note that in a list of attractions on its website the Central Scotland Forest Trust identifies a few of those areas: Glenboig nature park, North Calder heritage trail, Drumpellier country park and Summerlee heritage centre. It will be very helpful when they are all joined up by the green network.
Coatbridge has an undeniable industrial heritage that the townspeople are rightly proud of, and North Lanarkshire Council has tried to enhance and celebrate that legacy through ventures such as the industrial museum at Summerlee, which was built on derelict ground. Visitors to the museum can see for themselves the excellent way in which it has managed to preserve and interpret the history not only of the local iron, steel, coal and engineering industries but of the people and communities that depended on them for a living. The reclamation of a derelict industrial area in that way not only provides a window into our rich industrial and working-class heritage but generates revenue for the local economy by bringing visitors into the town. I should also point out that it is a first-class visitor attraction that Coatbridge and indeed the whole of Scotland should be proud of.
The museum also has Scotland's only working trams—[Laughter.]
For the moment.
Indeed. It also provides good recreational space in the middle of the town. Moreover, Drumpellier country park has already benefited from Forestry Commission investment to improve wildlife habitats and public access and create new paths to enhance community life.
We cannot understate the importance of urban green spaces in communities and their potential impact on quality of life. I note that in its briefing the Scottish Wildlife Trust says:
"A 10% increase in available greenspace reduces health complaints to a level equivalent to a reduction in 5 years of age."
Like many members, I have over the years argued for an end to the erosion of our green spaces, because I realise that further attrition will undoubtedly be detrimental to communities' sustainability and wellbeing. There is growing recognition of the built environment's impact on our health and wellbeing, and I have spoken previously about the link between obesity and the lack of green spaces. There is little doubt that we can draw a similar parallel with the physical environment's impact on our mental health, and providing a proper network of green areas will, for example, assist general practitioners who might want to prescribe walking as a treatment for certain patients. Good paths will certainly help in that respect.
Other members have said that local people are a valuable resource; I believe that they are the most valuable when it comes to improving our communities. After all, they are the experts and should be fully involved in any decisions that affect the areas in which they live.
I do not think that any speaker has made this point yet, but I believe that a gendered analysis should be carried out for and incorporated in any regeneration and restoration policy that might be formulated. Men and women experience their communities differently; they have different needs and use their local environment in different ways. I am glad that Alex Neil is responding to the debate, because this important issue comes within his remit. Of course, with our commitment to mainstreaming, it should come within all our remits.
Engagement and co-operation involving the network organisations, the Government, local authorities and community groups will ensure that the network is cognisant of local people's needs and will help to move the network forward by getting councils, which are fundamental to its success, on board.
It is good that Coatbridge was recognised during this year's beautiful Scotland awards. That recognition gave the area a welcome boost and built on the many developments that I have argued for over the years and which our community now enjoys. The minister mentioned meetings with British Waterways. I, too, have had meetings with British Waterways and have urged it to enhance the Monkland canal basin and walkways. It is now doing that, and it has ambitious plans for the future. The long-awaited painting of our railway bridges has also had a positive impact on the quality of life of people in the constituency.
It would be difficult for me to cite tangible evidence that my area has lost out on investment and business opportunities because of derelict industrial space, but as the constituency member for more than 10 years, I am aware that first impressions can be important and long lasting and that they can have an effect. There is still a lot of unsightly derelict land in my constituency. Further regeneration is needed to enhance Coatbridge and therefore residents' impression of the area.
I am running out of time, but I want to make a particular point. In Havana city in Cuba, the community has been allowed to take over pieces of derelict land—as happens with allotments—on which an organoponics system is used to grow food. Perhaps ministers will consider that approach.
When the minister sums up, will he tell us whether the network will lead to greater protection for existing green spaces? I welcome the network, but urge co-operation and the putting in place of a proper funding package to support the organisations that are involved in delivering such a welcome and ambitious project.
This is a welcome debate and a welcome initiative and I am happy to be able to speak in the debate.
Almost everything that I might have included in a written speech—which is scribbled out in front of me—has already been said, but there are quite a few important points and areas that merit further discussion. I will address those by going through as quickly as I can what members have said.
Elaine Smith referred to the environment's advantages for mental health. There are excellent examples of how mental health can be improved and assisted, as at the gardens in the Royal Edinburgh hospital and at Redhall walled garden. There is also the work that one or two of our prisons are doing in engaging prisoners in work in gardens and allotments before their release. I say to the Government that Suntrap garden in Edinburgh in particular, which is still open—just—deserves extra funding.
I will deal in reverse order with members who have spoken. I expected Chris Harvie to include in his speech the great quote from Patrick Geddes, "By leaves we live." It is, indeed, by leaves that we live. Without plants, there would be no animal life, including our own. Perhaps I should also refer to Robert Owen, who was one of the first industrialists to realise the importance of a healthy environment not only for workers, but for children. He also had interesting ideas about education. An all-round liberal education was central to the education of children at New Lanark.
The Clyde walkway and the Clyde initiatives are setting an example, certainly in the opinion of the Scottish Wildlife Trust. I should, of course, refer members to my entry in the register of interests, which includes a number of non-governmental environment organisations. The SWT considers that the Clyde walkway sets a good example of integration and development that should spread throughout not only that region, but the country. The SWT is clear that the initiative is a beginning, not an end. The bulk of the population of Scotland lies within the boundaries of the initiative, but we should think of extending it, perhaps along our railway and cycle networks right through the rest of Scotland.
Hugh O'Donnell referred to greening, how communities can be enthused, and the importance in the future of including communities in planning from the very beginning. In that context, I want to make some observations about things that I am sure are included in people's thinking but have not been included in any lobbying that I have received and were not included in the minister's speech—I refer to the inclusion in the process of education, schools and eco-schools. There is a huge opportunity to include eco-schools and individual council education departments in developments so that people are linked into them right from the beginning. We should not provide something that children get involved in afterwards; rather, children and the community should be involved from the very beginning so that they have a locus in the development.
I will give an example of what can be achieved. Fifteen years ago, in vacant land next to Craigmillar in Edinburgh, BTCV Edinburgh and a number of other organisations—I cannot remember all of them—planted more than 20,000 trees in a weekend. The trees are now up to 6ft or 7ft. I took 80 children from Boroughmuir high school, and we planted 700 trees ourselves in an afternoon. That is what can be done with communities. The Millennium Forest for Scotland Trust, which has already made a considerable difference to the central belt, is a tremendous initiative. We should build on such examples as quickly as we can.
Rob Gibson referred to the private sector's contribution: he was quite right in what he said. However, I would like specific reference to have been made to the Scottish Landowners Federation, which we need to have on side. We also need to consider the implications of the water environment directive, which Sarah Boyack has ably steered, and how river basin management groups can be involved in the central belt and the rest of Scotland.
John Scott referred to sustainable economic development. I was a bit surprised that he did not highlight the importance of incorporating the farming community in developments, because it is clear that its co-operation and that of landlords will be crucial if we are looking for maximum success. I must say that every time I hear the phrase "sustainable economic development" in the chamber, a little shiver goes down my spine, because we have among us very different interpretations of what it means.
Am I going beyond my time, Presiding Officer?
Perhaps the member should draw his remarks to a conclusion.
I am sorry, Presiding Officer.
I have spoken before to the minister about sustainable economic development. If we are going to talk about sustainable economic development and link it to planting and growth of trees, it is about time we upped to 40 per cent our target for Scotland's forest cover. That is not just possible; it would also be an extraordinarily good thing.
Finally, the greenest people in our society are the poorest people in the housing estates. On average, they emit 2 tonnes of carbon dioxide. The most ungreen people are those of us who can afford to insulate our houses and have green bling on our roofs. The average emissions on the estates in which people maintain two cars and so on is 30 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Perhaps we should start to invest in greening by getting trees and good environmental standards into our housing estates and in and around our schools.
I thank you for your patience, Presiding Officer.
I apologise for missing members' speeches, but I had an earlier engagement that I had to attend.
Throughout Scotland, majestic rivers, forests and a plethora of flora and fauna wait to be explored and enjoyed; its natural environment is envied throughout the world for its beauty and diversity. However, there are issues that we need to tackle; one that I want to highlight is transport links. Limited cycle and rambling pathways, and run-down facilities prevent Scots and visitors alike from making the most of the natural heritage that is on offer.
For my constituents, travel between Edinburgh and Lanark is often an ordeal. I hope that we can rectify that problem with the proposed new Glasgow to Edinburgh rail route and the commitment to have stops at Carluke and Carstairs. However, even trying to get out into the area surrounding Lanark can be a challenge, especially since the deregulation of bus services. It is important that we enable people to make the most of their local communities and the environment around them by developing cycling and walking pathways.
Several of my constituents have expressed their dismay at the number of derelict properties in our communities, which spoil our otherwise pleasant landscape. I hope that the minister will support calls for re-examination of the compulsory purchase powers that are available to local authorities in that regard.
Mr MacAskill and I have requested the Scottish Law Commission to undertake in its new work programme a comprehensive review of compulsory purchase order legislation. My understanding is that the commission has agreed to do that.
That is a helpful move and I am sure that it will be welcomed in many of the communities that I represent.
Although the transformation of the environment is of course a long-term commitment, action must be taken now to tackle the greening of communities throughout Scotland. The benefits of swift action cannot be understated. Improving health and wellbeing through encouraging physical activity such as walking and cycling could well contribute to the efforts to tackle prevalent Scottish health concerns such as obesity, asthma and heart disease. Other members have mentioned Ramblers Scotland, which has highlighted the potential to develop pathways to benefit Scotland's health and wellbeing.
Boosting opportunities for leisure and recreation does not have to cost the earth, and it can be an investment in protecting our precious Scottish biodiversity for the present and the future. A recent Dutch study highlighted the link between outdoor, or green, living and improved mental health. The potential to build town and village cohesion through the creation of green space in community growing gardens or spaces for play makes sense to me. In previous decades, the Clyde valley was home to many tomato growers and orchards, but that has changed. However, the community is keen to bring back some of that growing potential to the Clyde valley through community orchards and other growing potential. I ask the ministers to provide written advice as to how that can be supported for the communities who are involved.
I have young children, so I appreciate fully the importance of safe places to play. We are lucky in Clydesdale, but other people are not so lucky. The CPO issues are important, because spaces and safe play places could be created if we were able to knock down derelict buildings.
I turn to finance. Many of the communities that we are talking about bear the environmental scars of their industrial past. Regenerating them will be expensive and partnership working is key, but we will also need cash buy-in from all the partners, including the Scottish Government. However, it is not yet obvious that that is happening. I would welcome further information in Alex Neil's summing-up speech to provide clarity on the funding that has been made available to date. I accept that he cannot make proposals for Governments to come, but I would like to know what the current Government's proposals are on that.
My colleague Sarah Boyack made a suggestion about supporting unemployed young people. I would welcome an opportunity for Sarah Boyack and me to meet the two ministers who are involved in the debate to consider how we can make progress on that as quickly as possible. That would be a positive and practical way of supporting young people in our urban and rural landscapes, where it is not easy to find employment at the moment.
Sarah Boyack mentioned the Antonine wall and Robin Harper mentioned New Lanark. It is not clear from the maps whether New Lanark will be included in the proposed green network, so clarity on that would be welcome. If New Lanark were to be included, we would have three world heritage sites in the area. There would be opportunities to exploit those three sites, which connects to the debate that we had yesterday about the historic built environment. We could develop around those world heritage sites walking and cycling routes that link to other important buildings and natural facilities in the area. We could make connections between walking and cycling routes, as well as driving routes. I hope that ministers will consider that and I hope that we will have joined-up Government that looks across the issues that we have debated this week. I look forward to hearing Alex Neil's response pick up the points that have been raised.
I am pleased to sum up for the Liberal Democrats. The debate has been interesting and mostly consensual. At some stages, it has been surprising, with George Foulkes praising the two SNP ministers, although I am not too sure how much his tongue was in his cheek. We also had Christopher Harvie's usual romanticism, which takes us to better places. He mentioned the novel "Lanark" and Robin Harper and Karen Gillon mentioned New Lanark, where Robert Owen did great work on the working environment. He did that not only in New Lanark, but across the water in America.
Forestry is close to my heart, not only because I am a former Borders Forest Trust trustee and director and a Forestry Commission Scotland regional forestry forum member, but because I led the successful campaign against the Scottish Government's unpopular plan to sell off a quarter of Forestry Commission land, which was, thankfully, defeated. I shall refrain from using this opportunity to remind the Government of that debacle. Now that the future of Scotland's forest is assured, we must investigate the advantages of having a dedicated national land use strategy, which the Liberal Democrats have called for on several occasions. That would allow management practices for all land—not just forests—in Scotland to be examined and could lead to substantial improvements across the board.
Although the Scottish Government is undertaking a study of land use in rural areas, it is arguable that now is the time to focus on a wider-reaching land use policy, with intent to act. Robin Harper was correct that farmers should be involved in a wider strategy. Our proposed strategy would implement a holistic approach to integrated land use and would deliver multiple public benefits. As part of a dedicated land use strategy and a central Scotland green network, it would be important to ensure that Scotland's forests continued to offer a wide range of economic, social and environmental opportunities, thereby promoting access and biodiversity and securing a sustainable supply of wood from our forestry sector. The national forest estate can offer far more in public hands than it can in private ones. Furthermore, by choosing to introduce joint venture proposals rather than the leasing proposals, it is likely that the Government will make more money to tackle climate change.
The central Scotland green network strategy covers land from Ayrshire to East Lothian, parts of which, bizarrely, are in the South of Scotland region. The strategy is highly commendable and underlines the importance of publicly or trust-owned community woodlands. It is also a reminder that an urban green space network, with the environmental, social and economic benefits that it brings, is possible with inventive thinking.
There are clear links between the environment, green space, and good health and wellbeing, all of which must be nurtured and encouraged as much as possible. In a Greenspace Scotland survey in 2007, almost 60 per cent of respondents strongly agreed that they can relax and unwind in their local green space, and 56 per cent strongly agreed that it is an attractive space that is safe for physical activity. Greenspace Scotland supports the concept of the central Scotland green network. Its other key findings include the following: that there is a clear positive relationship between green spaces and health, particularly for young and older people; that the value of green spaces for physical exercise is unquestionable; that, on mental health, there is compelling evidence for the restorative effects of green spaces; and that, on social health, green spaces are some of the few remaining spaces that are available to all.
Walking and outdoor activities are growing in popularity in Scotland and have major benefits to individuals and the economy as a result of the development of outdoor business opportunities. The Scottish Liberal Democrats have long recognised the links between environment, activity and good health. We want to continue to improve access to Scotland's environment. There are forests throughout my area of the South of Scotland—Glentress in the Borders and the Galloway forest park are examples that spring to mind immediately. Those attractions are hugely important for the local economy and fulfil the objective of creating a healthy population. In Carrifran wildwood, the restoration of ancient woodlands inspires the imagination, and the Borders Forest Trust has recently acquired Corehead farm near the Devil's Beef Tub. That imaginative mix of land uses improves people's experience of visiting the area.
I am particularly interested in economic development through the green network. In the South of Scotland region, it is easy to see how many businesses and jobs are supported by our forests in one way or another. Often whole communities centre on forestry activity—for example, the village of Ae in Dumfriesshire was created for forestry workers in the Ae forest. The situation is different in urban areas in central Scotland and I do not expect new villages to sprout from the ground overnight, but there is no reason why that type of economic benefit cannot be replicated in the central belt.
Might it be possible to replicate forest crofts in the central belt area? Jim Hume said that he did not expect to see new villages appearing there, but we have small crofts in West Lothian at the moment. Does he think that those could be extended further into the central belt?
It would be most interesting to explore that.
I am glad that part of the focus will be on developing wood using businesses and heat energy projects, which will surely create and support jobs in the sector. I welcome the work of all those involved in the central Scotland green network. I hope that it is a starter that will inspire the rest of Scotland to follow. However, I remain a little concerned that the minister who has charge of the Forestry Commission in Scotland finds it absurd that the Forestry Commission wishes to see what resources will be available to deliver the green network, as Alison McInnes and George Foulkes mentioned. We and the Forestry Commission are not asking for new funds; all that we are asking is, "How?"
I have enjoyed listening to the many interesting speeches in this debate on the central Scotland green network, a project that could, in the fullness of time, make an enormous difference to the lives of many people throughout the central belt of Scotland, and increase the economic prosperity of that sizeable part of the country. Its vision of creating in the next few decades a high-quality green network that enhances people's lives, supports the economy, allows nature to flourish and addresses climate change is bold and exciting. However, to achieve it will require careful planning and investment and co-operative working between many organisations and communities, including local authorities, other landowners and NGOs such as SNH, the Forestry Commission, RSPB Scotland and the Scottish Wildlife Trust—which have interests and expertise in the environment and biodiversity—as well as the many voluntary organisations that have been referred to.
The network must bring together existing partnerships and initiatives. We have already heard about the Glasgow and Clyde valley green network, the central Scotland and Edinburgh and Lothians forests and the Ayrshire green network. It must encourage the further development of such good work and look to identify new areas that currently do not benefit from green initiatives.
The vision is long term, and planning needs early work by local authorities on green networks in order to incorporate the aims of the project in their development plans. The project presses all the right buttons for health and social wellbeing, for the environment, for the economy, for stimulating educational, cultural and outdoor activities and for involving communities. It will also encourage the restoration of derelict sites and urban regeneration. We have no hesitation in supporting the Government's motion this morning.
I agree with the Scottish Wildlife Trust that the central Scotland green network should be seen as a first step towards a national ecological network. Many communities north and south of the central belt would benefit from a similar network. There might not be the same dereliction and deprivation in those areas, but those communities would benefit from the opportunities that would stem from a strategically planned green network. Linked woodlands and other habitats, linked walkways and cycle paths to allow active travel routes, improved landscape settings for developments and more opportunities for outdoor activities would all be welcomed right across Scotland.
I accept Nanette Milne's point, but does she agree that old industrial areas that were the workhorses of the industrial revolution have greater need in the process?
I was just coming to that. I was about to say that it is of primary importance to deliver a better environment for the many people in central Scotland who are currently living in some of the most rundown and unsightly parts of the country, which were created by industrialisation in the past. Their health and life expectancy suffer the effects of deprivation and from the lack of healthy green space such as is readily accessible to most people in my part of the world.
The hugely ambitious plan to regenerate such areas for the benefit of all must be implemented, difficult though that will be in these financially constrained times. I am attracted to Sarah Boyack's suggestion that we give unemployed young people in such areas the opportunity to do constructive work and engage them practically in creating a better future for themselves and their fellow citizens.
I have a bee in my bonnet about allotment gardening, which I see as having a significant contribution to make to a green network. To quote the allotments regeneration initiative, they provide
"a sustainable source of healthy local food, as well as exercise and education for local communities, and an important biodiversity habitat for native flora and fauna. They provide green lungs in built-up areas and access to publicly owned land."
Currently, there are over 200 allotment sites throughout Scotland, around 70 per cent of which are owned by local authorities. They equate to 6,300 plots in all, which falls well short of satisfying demand for them. The waiting list throughout Scotland is about 3,000, with 600 people in Glasgow and 1,000 people in Edinburgh waiting to become plot holders. I would like to see those waiting lists disappear and I am pleased that the minister is committed to doing something about that, as she told me in response to a recent question. There is a good opportunity for the green network to bring together local authorities, health boards and other landowners to examine the potential for developing allotments in their areas, which would greatly benefit their communities.
I grew up on vegetables that were grown on my father's plot and I would like to see many more people benefiting from the fresh produce that I learned to grow and like as a child and the knowledge that I gained about nature and the joys of gardening, which have stayed with me throughout my life. I am pleased, in that context, to note that Annabel Goldie championed that cause recently when she visited the Reidhaven allotments in Glasgow North East and commended the gardeners there on setting a good example to us all. I hope that their example will indeed be followed throughout the central Scotland green network area and well beyond it.
Clear multiple benefits can be derived from a green network. Quality of life and prosperity are inextricably linked with preserving and enhancing the environment and, ultimately, only sustainable growth will guarantee prosperity. The central Scotland green network offers many opportunities for such growth and economic generation on a large and ambitious scale.
Will the member give way?
I have no time.
To achieve the network's full potential, it will have to be managed and funded in a carefully co-ordinated way that will ensure that local initiatives that are already under way and new ones that are planned now or in the future are linked into the overall network for the benefit of people throughout the central belt. I wish it every success.
Presiding Officer, can I clarify how many minutes I have—is it eight?
Probably nine.
Excellent.
At the outset, I comment that, although I think we all know that this is a filler debate, it has drawn together those of us in the Parliament who are interested in building a central Scotland green network. It has enabled us to put our priorities on the table and allowed people to bring out their passion for and knowledge of their own communities. It has also given us a positive opportunity to make demands of the Government.
For a change.
Of course—we are the Opposition.
Such demands have been made in a constructive way and people have tried to use this opportunity to put the Government under pressure, which is our job, and to give the ministers a push to go back to their ministerial colleagues and ask what they are doing to address the agenda. Some of us have been in that position, and I urge the ministers to use that pressure and lever not just to get themselves out of jail today but to make their colleagues play their part.
Some excellent points have been made about funding and priorities. Both John Scott and Alison McInnes spoke in their opening remarks about the need for clarity and greater co-ordination, and Alison McInnes's points need to be replied to in the minister's concluding remarks.
If the green network is to be a national planning framework priority, it needs to be a priority throughout Government; it cannot be just a little badge attached to the project. That means resources, clarity and commitment. I would like to hear about some of that in the minister's winding-up comments.
Rob Gibson was right to ask for a debate about reality and what will be spent. His comments backed up some of the points made by Opposition members. We need more clarity on funding; that is absolutely crucial.
George Foulkes was right to focus on reality, too. It is easy to come up with a title—it is interesting that every single one of us has bought into that title because we can all relate to it—but the green network needs to be a real priority. George Foulkes talked about spending £9 million on a referendum that most of us do not want versus spending £9 million on the central Scotland green network. That is a no-brainer, so I hope that ministers will think about it. They might not immediately be attracted to spending the £9 million on the network, but there would be vast support for it throughout the chamber.
Hugh O'Donnell talked about land around some of our most disadvantaged areas and previous industrial communities. In Motherwell, we could demonstrate the importance of developing derelict land. The new town of Cumbernauld was a vision from the middle of the previous century of using urban planning to create green networks and a high-quality green environment for people who had come out of some of the worst slums in Glasgow, which had been created at the turn of the 20th century.
The link between our urban communities and their surrounding areas was made by member after member. The challenge is to get green fingers from the heart of our urban communities to stretch out into rural areas.
Rob Gibson was a bit too quick to dismiss planning ideas. Green lungs are important in helping people in some of our most disadvantaged communities to have a better quality of life.
In the previous session of Parliament, we had the sustainable communities fund, which was aimed specifically at redressing the environmental injustice in the heart of communities that have experienced some of the worst environmental degradation as a result of the exploitation of natural resources. People who lived in communities where the coal, iron and steel industries operated might have had jobs in those industries but, once the industries went, they had a fantastic opportunity to clean up the environment and give their areas new life.
Elaine Smith spoke eloquently about how tackling that environmental legacy and making the most of our industrial history should be a priority. Summerlee heritage park is a fantastic example of reclamation, which should be celebrated as it gives people jobs. If Rhona Brankin had been here, she would have talked about the Scottish mining museum in her constituency. Through such places, our industrial heritage provides a benefit for today's communities. The miners who take visitors around the mining museum and the benefit to places such as Summerlee have to be celebrated.
Elaine Smith also mentioned the green gym initiative, allotments and other green projects, which general practitioners throughout the country are now recommending because their use is beneficial to physical and mental health.
Elaine Smith was right to point to the need for a gender analysis. Statistics show that women have less time and money available to them, so access to green networks, which they can visit and take their kids to, is absolutely crucial. Local access is hugely important. The gender analysis will also show that the issue of personal safety is key and has to be plugged in. I know from talking to people when I walk and cycle that one of the things that puts them off accessing green spaces is lack of certainty about their personal safety.
As ever, Robin Harper spoke eloquently about the need to make environmental justice a practical reality. He is absolutely right. Like Chris Harvie, he also spoke eloquently about the legacy of Patrick Geddes. Patrick Geddes was a polymath; he not only talked about town planning, industrialisation and philosophy but managed to tie it all together in a way that was relevant to his generation. We need to do the same.
The growing support for allotments, which Robin Harper and Nanette Milne talked about, is crucial. There is a real opportunity for us to do something practical that brings alive the climate change agenda and addresses the fact that many families in Scotland cannot afford to buy high-quality fruit and vegetables. The local shop around the corner cannot supply fruit and vegetables at cost, so families have to travel longer and longer distances to centralised supermarkets. Supermarkets have many benefits, such as in cost, but they are not necessarily accessible to everybody and, increasingly, people need cars to get to such retail opportunities.
Members have expressed lots of good and practical ideas. Robin Harper raised the specific issue, which others did not touch on in the same way, of the contribution that farmers and landowners can make; they can play a vital role.
Does Sarah Boyack think that linking local food networks and food co-operatives with local green networks would be a good idea, given the health issues that she has talked about?
I am happy to support that idea 110 per cent. I know that people in my constituency recognise and welcome the opportunity that the farmers market provides. Some of our most disadvantaged communities welcome food co-operatives because they give them a direct link to farming and affordable produce. We need more of that in our communities, so I absolutely agree with John Scott.
Karen Gillon made an excellent speech about the importance of linking our heritage sites. What an exciting idea it is to link the New Lanark industrial world heritage site and the Antonine wall world heritage site with the world heritage site in my constituency. Karen Gillon could not have put it more effectively.
This summer I spent a weekend cycling between Carlisle and Newcastle and saw the economic benefit that that region has been able to get from its world heritage site. The experience of cycling along Hadrian's wall—I hasten to add that I cycled adjacent to the wall, rather than on it—was fantastic. I saw the tourism and industrial heritage opportunities that the region has been able to link together. The last stretch towards Newcastle is all off-road; it is a magnificent cycle run, which is linked to the area's industrial heritage.
There are fantastic ideas in other parts of the UK, and I hope that the discussions that we have had today will give ministers heart to go back and bang on the door of their ministerial colleagues. We will know that ministers are serious about the agenda and the ambition behind the network when they start to answer the specific questions that many of us have asked. The Liberal Democrat amendment asks detailed questions, to which we would like answers. I hope that in his summing up Alex Neil will go some way to answering the detailed questions that Alison McInnes and others have asked.
I am afraid that the member should wind up now.
We have asked for an initiative on training and employment in the area for young people, which would be a practical result of today's debate. I hope that Alex Neil will take that on board.
This has been a good debate. Good speeches have been made by members of all parties and we have learned quite a lot. For example, Roseanna Cunningham and I did not realise that Lord Foulkes was our number 1 fan in the Parliament, nor did we realise that he is joining the 2 per cent of the population who cycle to work—we look forward to that with excitement.
I will deal with some of the issues raised during the debate. A lot of genuine and reasonable points were made, and I have good news on some of them.
I turn first to the issue of young people. We are all aware of the figures that were published yesterday, which show that youth unemployment in Scotland, and indeed in the rest of the country, is at an unacceptably high level. My view is that every one of us should take every opportunity to tackle that and to make an impact on the level of youth unemployment in our society. Therefore, I wholly endorse the comments that Karen Gillon and Sarah Boyack made about trying, wherever possible, to tailor the delivery of the programme to help deal with the problem of youth unemployment.
It is heartening to hear the minister say that. In parallel with that, will he look at the role of community sentencing and restorative justice in growing the network?
I know that Mr MacAskill is already looking at trying to employ young people who come into the justice system, to make them productive and fit to re-enter society.
My colleague Roseanna Cunningham and I are keen to meet Karen Gillon and Sarah Boyack to discuss practical issues around how we can take forward the youth employment agenda as part of the development of the central Scotland green network. Next month, Roseanna Cunningham will be launching the Forestry Commission Scotland strategy, woods for learning, which sets out how to increase young people's opportunities for learning experiences in woodland and green spaces. That is a good start, which indicates the commitment throughout the Parliament to developing youth employment opportunities.
Several members have referred to the areas that are not covered by the central Scotland green network. John Scott expressed concern about parts of South Ayrshire, George Foulkes expressed concern about parts of East Ayrshire, and Karen Gillon expressed concern about both Lanark and New Lanark. However, the 19 local authorities that are signed up to the programme include South Ayrshire Council, East Ayrshire Council and South Lanarkshire Council, and boundaries have not yet been agreed.
In fact, although it is a central Scotland green network, we do not want to be hidebound by rigidity in our approach to boundaries. We are open to suggestions about how we treat those areas, as there is a strong argument for tying places such as Lanark and New Lanark into some of the action points for the network so that those communities benefit, too. There is a similarly strong argument for doing likewise in some of the communities that George Foulkes mentioned, which have some of the highest levels of youth unemployment in Scotland. We have an open mind and will be co-operative as we share the agenda of ensuring that as many communities as possible in different parts of Scotland benefit from the programme.
Had the Liberal Democrat amendment called generally for further clarification of, or even detail on, the spending plans for the central Scotland green network, we would probably have been happy to support it. However, we must be careful what we vote for, and the very precise wording of the amendment causes us difficulty. The amendment asks the Scottish Government
"to clarify within the next six weeks its funding and delivery intentions for all"—
not just this initiative—
"the national developments in the National Planning Framework for Scotland 2".
I am asking what correlation there is between strategic plans and budgets. That does not seem to be unreasonable. No one would expect the Forth road bridge to be realised without proper planning and resource allocation. The minister has said that the central Scotland green network is as important as the Forth replacement crossing. Why should it be treated differently?
With due respect, that is not what the amendment says. First, the amendment is much more precise than that. It imposes a six-week timeframe, but four weeks will have passed before the chancellor makes his pre-budget report on 9 December. Even our budget for next year will not be absolutely finalised until we see the detail of the pre-budget report on 9 December. For example, we are debating whether capital can be brought forward from future years. We do not know the answer to such questions, and it would be extremely unreasonable to expect us to spell out the detail of any programme of this size within two weeks of the pre-budget report.
Will the minister give way?
I am sorry, but I have taken an intervention and need to explain this.
The amendment also asks for details of all 13 of the priorities in the national planning framework. If it asked only for the details of the central Scotland green network, that would be reasonable, but it asks for details of all 13 projects. I had thought that the Liberal Democrats' priority was the green network, but the wording of the amendment does not reflect what was said in the Liberal Democrat speeches.
Will the minister give way?
No, I am sorry.
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will take an intervention from George Foulkes.
I was minded to support the Liberal amendment, but the minister has adequately dealt with it and I agree with him that it should not be supported today.
I thank Lord Foulkes for that intervention.
Roseanna Cunningham and I will be happy to write to the conveners of the appropriate committees to set out how and when we can give clarification on the spending plans for the central Scotland green network. We understand members' need for that information, but we must schedule that according to a reasonable timeframe.
The network's board will have its first meeting in January and those who are involved in the board, including the 19 local authorities, must have the opportunity to input into the business plan, including the spending priorities. It would be entirely unreasonable for us to prejudice that situation, which is another reason for rejecting the Liberal Democrat amendment.
Unfortunately, I do not have time to cover the many other points that I wanted to cover. I thank all members for their speeches in what has been a good-quality debate. There has been a wide consensus of opinion and, as a consensus politician, I am delighted to acknowledge that.