Woodland and Green Spaces
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1008, in the name of Michael Russell, on the benefits of woodland and green spaces.
In October, I had the privilege of speaking at the Central Scotland Forest Trust's conference, at which one of the big issues was the link between a high-quality physical environment and better health and well-being. I attended many events during the summer at which I saw such a link demonstrated before my own eyes. I visited several community woodlands, such as the Milton woodland in Tain, where I found myself playing a drum alongside a forester who was playing a home-made didgeridoo—if that was not good for me, I do not know what is, although it might not have been good for the audience.
Green space plays an important role in all five of the Government's strategic objectives. High-quality green space that is well connected and popular with local people can play a vital role in delivering against several of the national outcomes. In that regard, apart from the greener objective, probably the most significant objective is the one on health. I am pleased to present the debate alongside my colleague the Minister for Public Health, Shona Robison, who will sum up the debate and respond to the points that are made during it.
One area of our work in which the links between health and the natural environment are most fully developed is forestry. That work focuses on several priorities: encouraging physical activity by making local woodland welcoming and accessible to all; woodland as a therapeutic environment; woodland-based learning; and woodland as a venue for outdoor activity. In all those matters, there is a strong partnership between the health and forestry sectors. In October, NHS Health Scotland and the Forestry Commission Scotland held a green exercise conference that was attended by 130 delegates.
The partnership is strong, but it can become stronger. Work is on-going to develop woodland's role in promoting mental well-being. We are developing more sites that encourage natural play by children. We are creating networks of green space, involving woodland and other habitats, not simply for their biodiversity value, but for the links that they provide, which allow communities to make choices about, for example, how they go to the shops, school or work. We are concentrating on deprived areas and prioritising the use of woodland by target groups. Altogether, the Forestry Commission has committed £200,000 in the next three years to supporting a range of projects related to health and well-being.
A particularly good example that I saw this summer, and which I was impressed by, is at Drumchapel. I have just had a look to see whether the local member, Bill Butler, is in the chamber, because he knows the real value of that scheme. The inspirational ranger, Jo Thomson, is leading a project that is bringing people into a piece of ancient woodland that is owned by Glasgow City Council and is now managed in partnership with the Forestry Commission. People are walking, playing and working in the woods—in a place that, only a year ago, people feared to enter. That wood is a centre of well-being.
I am therefore pleased to announce today a further commitment of £100,000 by the Forestry Commission in 2008-09 to deliver a series of innovative projects to develop woodlands further. I should stress that that £100,000 is always matched in partnership with other organisations. It adds real value in ensuring that woodland and forest space contribute to our health objective.
We have been talking about the links between health and environment. There are also links between health and business development, so I am happy to accept the amendment from the Tories. The Scottish grown timber industry contributes £494 million in gross value added to the Scottish economy—or 0.6 per cent of our economy—and employs about 12,000 people, directly and indirectly. If we add in the economic activity associated with access and recreation, which is exceptionally important, the value of that wider forestry sector becomes £760 million, or almost 1 per cent of the total economy. It is not a matter of promoting either health, well-being and access or commercial activity; taken together, the two things make an enormous contribution to our nation.
We are supporting business development in the commercial forestry sector in a number of ways, including grants for woodland creation, support for the use of wood biomass and the promotion of timber use in construction. This morning, I was pleased to launch not just the timber development plan, but a new book by the architect Peter Wilson on the use of timber in building. We are also supporting forestry businesses and woodland owners as we reach the stage of application of the Scottish rural development programme. There is a challenge in all elements of government, but I am pleased to have the responsibility of looking after the forestry sector and of bringing issues in that sector to debate here in the chamber.
I am sorry to have to reject the Labour amendment, but there are strong reasons for doing so. I will give two of them. The consultation draft was issued in August 2006, and the policy was issued in November this year—there has been an extensive consultation period. On the two specific issues that have been raised, the national minimum standards for open space in new developments were well debated.
The planning system, as many respondents pointed out, is operated largely by local authorities. Decisions about the protection of and investment in local open space are generally best left to local authorities and communities. There are concerns about the impact on brownfield development, regeneration proposals and affordable housing.
Our amendment is moderate with regard to the issue about consultation. Will the minister explain why it was decided to circulate the revised version of Scottish planning policy 11, which took out critical elements for which there was support, and why that revised version of SPP 11 was issued only to the stakeholder group and not for broader consultation? He will find that there are strongly held views in that regard.
I am sorry that I am not able to give that explanation, but I am happy to find out and write to the member about why that was done. However, I do not think that any conspiracy was involved. What was involved was further consultation—something that the previous Government was very keen on.
I would have liked to be able to accept the Labour amendment, but I am afraid that it is factually wrong with regard to what we are all trying to achieve. I will also be unable to accept the Liberal Democrat amendment, which has the hallmark of an amendment that was written before anybody had seen the motion. Everything in that amendment is in the motion or is already in our policy, and it seems somewhat unnecessary to ask for yet another commitment. In those circumstances, I cannot accept the amendment.
There are good-news stories to be told about Scotland's forests. There are many such stories, including the commercial story, but the health story is a very strong one. I hope that the Parliament will unite in support for those many people who work in forests and woodlands in Scotland, delivering for the benefit of Scotland's people.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the value of the physical environment in promoting health and wellbeing; recognises the role that woodland and other greenspace plays in this through increased opportunities for physical activity, relaxation and social interaction in people's everyday lives, and calls on the environmental and health sectors to work together to further develop the contribution of woodland and other greenspace to Scotland's health.
I welcome the terms of the motion in the name of Michael Russell, and I agree with what he said about the importance of accessible green space, from both the environmental and health perspectives. In government, Labour took steps to improve controls and safeguards for high-quality green space, arguing that everyone should have access not only to Scotland's magnificent scenery but to open land, in particular to woodland near where they live.
Throughout Scotland, even in the most industrialised and densely populated parts of the country, there are green corridors, woodland spaces and recreational areas for walking and sporting activity, which are vital to the health and well-being of our people. It is important that such places, which are the green lungs for urban Scotland, enjoy the same standard of protection that is applied to more remote and picturesque places.
Labour members regard environmental justice as a key component of social justice. People in the most deprived communities have to deal with the consequences of industrial decline: pollution, litter, graffiti and poor-quality housing. Regeneration of those areas through investment in employment, housing, education and other services must be accompanied by environmental regeneration involving the protection—and, where possible, creation—of woodland and other types of protected urban space.
None of that is new. In my constituency, the Kilpatricks project—it is close to Drumchapel—which began in the early 1990s has had a considerable impact on Faifley by helping to secure the quality of the environment for people in that area. However, there is a need to protect and maintain existing woodland space even in more affluent areas. That is why I worked hard with local groups to ensure that the new water treatment plant in Milngavie did not come at the expense of the main recreational space in the district. I do not think that such issues should be seen as party political; there is broad consensus that we should avoid harm to existing open space and woodland and make positive efforts both to extend the amount of protected woodland and open space and to protect those areas through regulation.
That is why, in 2006, Johann Lamont, as Deputy Minister for Communities, and Patricia Ferguson, as Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, launched a consultation exercise on the draft SPP 11. The key objectives were to ensure that local authorities take a strategic approach to sport and open space provision; to protect and enhance networks of open space; to support opportunities for active and passive recreation; to set standards for the quality and quantity of open space in new developments and provide for its long-term maintenance; and to provide guidance on planning for the development of new sports and recreation facilities.
As an integral part of achieving those objectives, the draft SPP involved a strengthened presumption against development on existing open space or space that is capable of being brought back into functional use; a requirement that makes it important for local authorities to undertake an open space audit within a set timescale; statutory consultation on non-sporting green spaces; and a proposal to introduce new national minimum standards for the quantity of open space in new developments.
It is true that, among the 135 responses to the consultation, some expressed reservations about a possible lack of flexibility as a result of the introduction of minimum standards, but it is difficult to understand why the Government has watered down those policies in the regulations that it published recently. Members of the Scottish National Party, as well as members of the Labour Party, are unhappy about that; Michael Matheson has submitted questions on it and a number of his colleagues have indicated that they have concerns.
If, as the minister suggests, protection of open space and woodland is so important for the future health and well-being of the people of Scotland and for the environment in which we live, why is the Government shirking its responsibility to maximise the protection that it is given?
Given the spirit of trying to be co-operative, I think that the word "shirking" is a little strong. I hope that the member accepts that there is a triple lock on certain issues. Every Scottish local authority must undertake an open space audit; there is a presumption against development on open spaces that are valued and functional; and local development plans must set out specific requirements for the provision of open space. There is a triple lock on open space. This Government is far from being against open space being part of every community.
One has to consider the practical implications. There is a view among my constituents that open space protection is now significantly weaker than the protection that is given to green-belt land. Some of my constituents are resisting the redesignation of the Dalmuir wedge area in Clydebank as open-space land, rather than green-belt land, because they fear that that will entail greater risk of development encroaching on land that has been available for public access for generations. If that is replicated throughout Scotland, the intention of SPP 11 will be sabotaged.
Rather than abandoning the commitment to minimum standards, ministers should surely have consulted further on the format and content of the standards, to ensure the necessary flexibility without compromising the principle or the additional protections offered.
It is hard to see why the time limit for the audit of open space by local authorities has been dropped. Surely that could have been part of the outcome agreement to which each council is being asked to sign up. Given that the consultation clearly indicated strong support for statutory consultation on non-sporting green spaces, why is that missing from the SPP document? All those things could have been handled better.
The minister said that we need to focus on health. The danger is that the changes that the Government has introduced could deny communities high-quality green space, leaving children with limited land for play and adults with limited opportunities to access green space for recreational activity to improve their health. Health professionals are increasingly keen for their patients to become more physically active. In the face of growing levels of childhood obesity, parks and green spaces are needed close to home to encourage physical activity from an early age.
I agree that everyone—not just adults with cars—should be able to have access to our green spaces. The way in which SPP 11 has been revised is not conducive to that.
I move amendment S3M-1008.3, to insert after "lives":
"notes the significant revisions to SPP 11: Open Space and Physical Activity between the draft consultation and the published document, including the omission of statutory consultation on non-sporting green spaces and proposed minimum standards of open space within developments, and believes that the Scottish Executive should consult further on these significant changes to planning policy,".
This is a welcome debate, which focuses on the health benefits to be derived from the woodland and green space in our communities; I will concentrate on that in the next few minutes. However, we felt that it was important not to lose sight of the significance of commercial woodland development to our economic well-being, hence our amendment, which I am pleased to note that the minister has agreed to accept.
Scotland's woodlands are not yet accessible to as many people as they might be, and the Woodland Trust Scotland is working to improve access to woods close to people's homes. However, our woods provide significant recreational benefits, with Woodland Trust sites receiving around 1 million visits per year and estates such as Mar Lodge and Glentanar on Deeside providing much scope for outdoor recreation.
The Forestry Commission has 20 visitor centres across the country, with 235 walking trails, 100 cycling trails, and 58 horse-riding trails. Our forests play host to many sporting events and activities, such as car rallying, woodland motocross and the mountain bike world cup.
In these days of increasing childhood obesity, it is important to encourage children to take part in active outdoor pursuits, and it is good to see a growing interest in eco-schools and forest schools, which stimulate the interest of primary school pupils in their surroundings. I was delighted to learn this week that there are already 44 forest schools in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire.
On Monday I visited my local primary school in Cults, which has achieved the coveted green flag award as an eco-school and has recently started work with the Woodland Trust as a forest school. I met the 13 pupils who form the school's eco-council; they impressed me not only with their enthusiasm, but with their awareness of their local environment and their many ideas for enhancing it. They spoke of the pleasure that they got from being a forest school. Each week, pupils from primaries 3 to 7 go into a marked piece of woodland adjacent to the school, where they become nature detectives—building shelters, planting trees and generally experiencing the forest and learning about the animals and plants that it supports. In an interesting and enjoyable way, those children are learning about the benefits of woodland and green space and the opportunities for activity that they provide. Another initiative that I liked is being promoted by the school's eco-council; it is called park and stride, and it encourages pupils to walk at least part of the way to and from school. The children's enthusiasm is tangible, and I commend their efforts to the Parliament.
Cycle paths and walkways encourage people not to use their cars for short journeys in their communities; that is of benefit not only to health but to the environment, because it cuts down on fuel consumption and reduces congestion on local roads. Planning for future sustainable communities must provide for networks of local pathways and green spaces. I know that councils are considering that issue in great detail in their local plans.
In such a short debate, there is no time to deal in depth with all the physical and mental health benefits that are to be derived from woodland and green space in our physical environment, but there are many such benefits. In that regard, I must touch on my own hobby horse of gardening as an example of an extremely beneficial contributor to our health and our local environment. I fully support the Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society in its efforts to have more council sites allocated to allotment gardening. I commend the many local initiatives that we heard about in a recent SAGS seminar, which involve many patches of untidy or derelict urban land being transformed into spaces that can be used and enjoyed by local residents.
At that seminar, Sarah Boyack gave several examples of small community groups in her constituency who have come together to do that work; those groups benefit their own health by their physical activity and that of their neighbours by the environmental improvements that they have achieved.
Much is being done and much more can be done to improve access to woodland and green spaces. The Liberal Democrat amendment to the motion addresses various prescriptive ways of achieving that. I do not have any particular issue with the Liberal Democrat amendment, but I do not see the need for it; nor, indeed, do I see the need for the Labour amendment. I would prefer to leave the motion as it stands—adding, of course, our amendment as a reminder of the importance of commercial forestry.
I move amendment S3M-1008.2, to insert after "lives":
"further recognises the economic significance of woodlands and the need to support the development and expansion of Scotland's commercial forestry sector".
I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats in the debate. It is difficult to disagree with today's motion, which is neither new nor substantial.
As a former south of Scotland regional forestry forum member and trustee with the Borders Forest Trust, I am well acquainted with the work that has gone on in previous years to increase the use of woodlands and green space. In 2005, £1 million was given to Greenspace Scotland for community woodlands—10 times the £100,000 that has been promised to the Forestry Commission today. Back in the early 90s, two community woodlands sprang to life in the Borders, the main one being Wooplaw community woodland between Lauder and Galashiels—one of the first in the country—which was founded by the late, great Tim Stead and many locals. Tim is now buried in that woodland, and his work as a wood sculptor can be seen in the millennium clock up at the National Museum of Scotland on Chambers Street. The woodland focuses on education, training, art, recreation and the sustainable production of forest products. Lochend Wood in East Lothian is also managed successfully and wetland areas there are contributing to the local wildlife.
There is a well-known link between health, well-being and activity, and the use of our outdoor environment. It has been shown that the percentage of green space in people's environment is positively associated with their perceived general health. That is not to mention the opportunity for using green spaces for nature kindergarten—I am disappointed that the minister does not support that. The benefits of educating the youngest children about their environment are well known and we are lagging behind in that.
With that in mind, I had hoped that the recent planning policy on open space and physical activity would keep the new national minimum standards for open space that were detailed in the consultation on the policy. The original version of the policy required all local authorities either to adopt the national minimum standards and thresholds, or to set higher ones. By the time that the guidelines for local authorities were issued earlier this month, all reference to minimum standards had been removed.
People should feel proud of where they live. Using community woodlands and other green space to improve people's health will undoubtedly have positive effects—on, for example, the national health service and the economy—as a healthier workforce means people taking fewer days off sick. However, 40 per cent of people in urban areas think that the quality of their green space has deteriorated in the past five years, and that figure is higher in deprived areas. We need to do more to recognise the links between green spaces, activity and good health.
There is ample opportunity to use land that was previously developed and is now derelict to help regenerate communities. If they are engaged, people will want to improve the communities in which they live. They will then enjoy their surroundings and will benefit as a direct result. That is not to mention the environmental benefit of transforming a brown space into a green space—trees, of course, being the lungs of the earth.
Adequate resources are necessary to create and maintain path networks and outdoor education services. The Scottish Government must ensure that local authorities develop their core path plans in order to improve access. In the rural situation, we have to work in co-operation with the land users. There is an example of that in the Ettrick flood plain habitat plan, in which 12 local farmers entered into management agreements that included times for cutting their hay, fertiliser application, et cetera. That is now one of the largest flood plain woodland restorations in the United Kingdom. No-one wants to dislodge land users from their land when both can live hand in hand. Such co-operation is important and it works; I could happily provide the minister with a long list of examples from my previous experience.
The creation of community woodlands, footpath and cycle networks is good for our health and our education, and we know that it is possible—projects are, and have been, happening all over the country. I have planted into the tens of thousands of trees. I wonder how many the minister—personally—has planted. Creating woodlands can be an opportunity for traditional rural businesses and it needs to be managed in the right way, to benefit everyone.
I hope that the minister sees some light. I am happy to move amendment S3M-1008.4, to leave out from "and calls" to end and insert:
"believes that the voluntary and public sectors can work proactively to promote the use of existing woodland and other greenspace, particularly by young people, through such activities as nature kindergartens, outdoor education centres and footpath networks; recognises the importance of local authorities developing core path plans in improving public access to greenspace; further recognises the need to work with land managers to increase access to land through management contract incentives; therefore calls on the Scottish Government to commit to long-term funding to sustain better access for everyone to urban and rural woodland and greenspace through management contract incentives; calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that local authorities create better public access to their area by developing and implementing core path plans, and calls on the environmental and health sectors to work together to further develop the contribution of woodland and other greenspace to Scotland's health."
We now move to the debate. I remind members that speeches are to be four minutes long.
The old forester in Scotland said, "Aye be sticking in a tree, because while you're sleeping, it's growing." People can plant trees in their gardens, as they can in communities and commercially—it has benefits in all those areas. I will draw some comparisons. Environment and health, recreation and commerce, all go together and they work well.
We have to plant a lot more fruit trees, hazel trees and the like, which people can grow both in small spaces and more widely. We have to change our diet, and one way of doing that is by planting trees such as those that I mentioned. If people use wood in wood-fired stoves, it heats them four times—once when they fell it, once when they split it, once when they stack it, and once when they burn it. Planting trees is useful for both health and the environment, as it keeps a carbon sink in place.
The value of green spaces to the physical environment is important in the debate, which should not be diverted into discussion of SPPs of whatever sort. In the Inverness area, the green wedge is being used for a sustainable housing fair. However, on the outskirts of the city, large areas in private ownership are being used for massive housing developments whose quality will be nowhere near that of the housing that is being proposed in the fair. Why do we have to use the green wedge? We have to get our hands on more of that other land, on which people are speculating.
Community woods and mixed woods work well. A good example is the small 36 hectare wood at Culag in Lochinver, which contains Douglas fir, Norway spruce, Sitka spruce and Scots pine as well as pockets of other native trees. The local schoolchildren use the woods. They plant trees themselves, so they are learning to do what the Liberal Democrats' stream-of-consciousness amendment proposes. I am sure that the minister and many other people have been planting the seeds of ideas that are helping people to do such things. It is important to do so.
Those who are involved at Culag woods have also helped with people's health by buying another area at Little Assynt, where they have built accessible paths for wheelchairs. I was pleased to be at the opening a couple of years ago. The project shows that we can take people out into the countryside or go on our holidays to an area and find facilities for the disabled. That enhances people's lives. The area has been planted with thousands of native trees, so it will become even more interesting in the future. One can see golden eagles and many other sorts of wildlife there.
The most massive green spaces are the world heritage sites. I make a plea for the Government's support in ensuring that the flow country in Caithness becomes such a site. We have to apply through Britain and so on. We have got to move on, in that sense, and make sure that we get the world importance of such places recognised.
The community planning partnerships are a way to get local communities to think about how to develop woodlands and open spaces. We have to do much more to give them a chance to do that. However, a great stress inducer is the way in which the Big Lottery Fund is making it more and more difficult for community groups to buy woodlands and the like. It changes the rules for applications all the time. In my village, Evanton, we have been struggling for the past five years to buy a wood from a willing seller in the local estate. We have to tackle that as well.
As I said to the minister, aye be sticking in a tree—perhaps a Christmas tree in a big pot that can be brought out each year instead of chopping one down. The Forestry Commission scheme is excellent, but I hope that we can have living trees that are passed on from one year to the next.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to what I perhaps uncharitably described—when I first heard what was to be debated—as a tree-hugging debate. Those of a more cynical bent might think that it is a time filler, but given my lack of cynicism and my happy disposition, I am happy to acknowledge that there are important and challenging issues in the debate, both for the Administration and for members. I say to Rob Gibson that the point about SPP 11 is not a diversion but a central issue. I am sure that he would have acknowledged that in the past, even though now, in power, he is unable to do so.
My first point is that woodlands and green spaces are particularly important for those in urban areas such as my constituency. I ask the minister to confirm that the Executive intends to pursue environmental justice and address the anxiety that I have about the decision to merge Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. He will recall that, when the First Minister was asked about the matter, he said that everything would be okay because they would be absorbed into a rural services body. If any communities deserve the protection of SEPA, it is surely those in urban areas that already live with the consequences of industrial development, pollution and dereliction over time. I would like an answer to that point.
Secondly, I am also sure that the minister will confirm and recognise the importance of green spaces and woodlands in addressing the health needs of people in areas of deprivation. In my own constituency for example, excellent work has been done on a localised basis to reach out to men who do not address their own health needs. As well as education, that has included an activity group, including jogging and walking outdoors. Considering such a project, the importance of urban woodland space becomes obvious.
The minister may be aware of serious concerns at a local level about the funding of such projects because of uncertainty in the community regeneration fund and the role of community planning partnerships. Indeed, I understand that health boards were not consulted on those plans ahead of the budget, and I look for some reassurance on that localised budgeting, which makes such a difference to the community projects that bring together health issues and the environment.
My third point, on SPP 11, is the most important. I want particularly to appeal to those Scottish National Party back benchers who have a long record of supporting moves to protect green space in urban areas. I urge them to support our moderate amendment. It asks them not to take a view, but to agree that there should be further consultation on certain questions.
Let me give members a brief history lesson. As has been indicated, SPP 11 was put out in draft form for consultation. Critical elements included timescale for audit and minimum standards within new developments. Anyone who represents an area where there has been a new development will understand that if open space is not included at the beginning, people will reject it being put beside them at a later stage. If it is really important, it should be done during the development. I am not clear why the SNP would indicate that that issue is somehow a matter for local government, considering how other planning matters are dealt with. Another critical element in the consultation was non-sporting green spaces.
Those were tough choices, so it was deeply disappointing that, once consulted on, those critical elements were dropped. That decision did not correlate with what the consultation found. The elements were dropped after a redraft was circulated to a number of stakeholders, and it is disappointing that there was not a further opportunity to consider that difficult shift.
I will quote two groups. The spokesman for Fields in Trust said:
"There is a sense of deep, deep disappointment. There was an expectation that we would be one of the best countries in Europe in terms of open space planning but these hopes have been dashed".
The spokesperson for Play Scotland spoke of its "huge disappointment" with the SNP:
"There is huge pressure on local authorities to release land for developers and they have the upper hand at the moment. That is not a good situation for Scotland."
The Labour amendment would provide for further consultation. This week of all weeks we need to give confidence that the planning system seeks to find a balance between development and the protection of the environment. The draft of SPP 11 that went out for consultation gave that; the filleted version does not. Our amendment would ensure simply that, by consulting further on the critical elements, people can feel confident that this Administration, like the previous one, understands the balance and is transparent in delivering it. SPP 11 is about a good environment across Scotland, and I urge back benchers to support the Labour amendment on that basis.
It is about time that we started to treasure and give real value to our woodland, countryside and informal urban green spaces, rather than selling them off to luxury housing developers or simply neglecting them. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Labour amendment. I have been lobbied hard by the International Play Association and others with concerns about SPP 11.
Accepting the value of our open spaces to health, well-being and the economy, I want to focus briefly on their value as learning spaces. Access to and use of woodland and green spaces is vital to our children as it gives them access to outdoor education. Sadly, however, children in Scotland do not today receive equal access to the opportunities and advantages provided by outdoor education. The main obstructions are our increasingly risk-averse culture and a lack of investment and training.
Let me first deal with risk. Clearly, we need to protect children from harm, but with the current risk management model we will always find another hazard to control, which then leads to another over bureaucratic restriction on activities—stifling further the opportunities for quality learning. We need to balance the benefits of outdoor education with the need for proportionate protection of our children. Kathleen Marshall, the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland, said recently that excessive restrictions on the lives of children and young people breach their rights
"to healthy development, to associate with friends, to engage in sports and outdoor activities. What we are doing is impeding children's development".
The Scottish ministers must show more leadership and resolution, because the health and well-being opportunities that they welcome in their motion will be limited by the risk-averse culture that is developing in Scottish schools and care establishments, which have varying and inconsistent local policies on risk, and among parents.
The opportunities for learning spaces that our woodland and green areas offer will be further undermined by any continued lack of investment and encouragement. The Scottish Government must create a long-term plan to ensure that every schoolchild in Scotland can participate in outdoor education and to require school inspectors to appraise and report on access to and use of green space. I will be interested to hear whether the ministers would consider working on such a plan, which would of course involve the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, too.
Sometimes, we cannot see the wood for the trees. Children and young people should be encouraged to seek personal challenges that involve some risk taking, but in safe and supportive environments.
Patrick Harvie and I will support the Labour amendment, because there are many concerns about the state of SPP 11. I am not content that we have the requisite protection, particularly for urban green space. I am pleased that the Liberal amendment mentions education and kindergartens, but it calls for support for nothing other than management contracts for farmers, so we will have to abstain on it.
I pay tribute to the wonderful work that is done in gardens in Edinburgh—enormously beneficial work is done at Redhall walled garden for people with mental health problems. I congratulate Nanette Milne on supporting the amendment that I submitted but which was not taken, by mentioning eco-schools. We will support the Conservative amendment.
I agree with the minister that the environment plays an important role in ensuring good health among our constituents. That is equally true in rural and urban constituencies. Members will not be surprised that, as I am an MSP for an urban constituency, I think that green space and woodland are most valued in urban areas.
I grew up on the Dundee housing estate of Whitfield, which is in the constituency of my colleague Shona Robison. It was known in the citizens band radio community as the concrete jungle—a place where green space had been given little, if any, regard in early planning. I am pleased that we have learned much from the mistakes of the past and that describing Whitfield as a concrete jungle now would be wrong. We have a much greener new Whitfield.
The importance to health of access to good-quality green space cannot be overestimated. Not just physical health, but mental health can benefit from green space. Green space is of great benefit to people who live in cities such as Dundee. Evidence is emerging that access to high-quality green space can reduce stress, provide an opportunity for physical activity and build community spirit.
Deryck Irving, who is the senior development officer for Greenspace Scotland, has said:
"Research has shown that access to appropriate, good quality greenspace can have a positive impact on both mental and physical health. Equally, a lack of access to such greenspace can have a negative impact on mental and physical health and well-being."
In 1980, 12 per cent of Scotland was covered by woodland. By 2006, that figure had risen to 17 per cent. The aim is to increase that to 25 per cent, which will result in an additional 650,000 hectares of woodland throughout Scotland. I am sure that we all agree that we should aim to travel in that direction, but the placement of our new woodland must be well thought out.
RSPB Scotland has expressed concerns about that and has stressed the importance of developing new woodland, because inappropriately locating new woodland can damage wildlife. I seek reassurance from the minister that careful planning will be involved in aiming to achieve the target of increasing forestation so that it covers 25 per cent of Scotland.
A number of green space projects in Dundee have enjoyed success. The Baxter park restoration project, for example, revamped and cleaned up that park and installed urban rangers to engage with the public, and the Middleton community woodland project in my old ward has created a community woodland on an area of land adjacent to the Whitfield housing estate. That project has been successful in engaging young people from Braeview academy, local youth groups and community organisations.
One of the most successful projects in my constituency of Dundee West has been in Ardler—I refer to the Ardler in bloom project and the Ardler Environmental Group. In 2004, when the Ardler estate was newly finished, a local gardening competition was set up to encourage residents to grow their own plants and take pride in the environment. Many residents of the new village of Ardler had moved from multistorey flats that were demolished, so they had no experience of owning their own garden. The project supported those residents in their new gardens, and it has continued. The Ardler Environmental Group, which has also been supported by the urban ranger project, was established with the aim of making the area more attractive to wildlife and local communities. The people involved in such projects played a large part in Ardler estate winning a British Urban Regeneration Association award for best practice in regeneration in 2006 and the Queen's award for voluntary service this year.
Good-quality green space can be the cornerstone of the economy. Last month, I spoke about Camperdown country park, which is Dundee's top attraction. It has 400,000 visitors every year and is home to the Camperdown elm and Scotland's last city-based red squirrel population. It is a huge asset to the people of Dundee. In 2006, it managed to play host to Radio 1's big weekend festival. It has been estimated that that festival boosted the local economy to the tune of around £10 million.
All our constituents would benefit much from improved access to green space and woodland. There should be an holistic approach to community regeneration, as there has been in Dundee, with green spaces properly planned.
I urge members to support the motion.
I support the amendment in the name of Des McNulty. I want to deal specifically with how our woodland can be used to benefit tourism.
The Piranha Trail Builders was the first group from my constituency to bring to my attention the problems that are encountered in using Scotland's forests for recreational pursuits. The group consists of young mountain bikers who built their own trail in Lennoxtown forest. Unfortunately for them, all their hard work came to nothing, as the Forestry Commission deemed that the course that they had spent so much time and money putting together was too dangerous in that it did not comply with health and safety guidelines. Therefore, it had to be pulled down. However, a meeting with commission officials was arranged, a suitable compromise was reached and a new site has recently been identified in the Campsie hills where another exciting mountain bike trail could be constructed.
All the Piranhas were inspired by the world mountain biking championships, which Nanette Milne mentioned. Those championships were held at Fort William and were shown to a worldwide television audience. However, the Piranhas had a problem in accessing a challenging course near to their homes. The Government, too, has a problem in ensuring that our woodlands can be utilised for the benefits of recreation and tourism and in encouraging people to get out into the vast unspoilt landscape of Scotland.
I know that the member has a strong interest in the matter. In the light of his recent inquiries, I give an assurance that the Forestry Commission is keen to help his constituents to access land. The commission's recent acquisition of new land will make that much more possible. We are confident that the member's constituents—the Piranhas among them—will be pleased with that.
I thank the minister for that good news, which I am sure the Piranhas and others will welcome.
I remind Mr Russell that it was the Labour-Liberal coalition that agreed in the "Partnership for Scotland" document to produce the first Scottish forestry strategy, which was published in 2000. One of the five strategic priorities that were identified then was
"to create opportunities for more people to enjoy trees, woods and forests in Scotland"
by providing woodland recreation opportunities near towns, improving the availability of information about opportunities and increasing forestry's contribution to tourism.
In 2005, the Forestry Commission asked the Tourism Resources Company to prepare a research framework for a strategy to develop sustainable cycling facilities in the national forest estate. It wanted to build on the success of the world downhill championships at Fort William and of the 7stanes mountain bike development in southern Scotland. However, the strategy was not targeted only at extreme sports enthusiasts—the commission wanted to develop a range of cycle products. Those came under two headings: forest cycling, which is aimed at leisure, family, novice and sightseeing visitors; and mountain biking, with a network of high-quality, purpose-built facilities across Scotland linked to forest cycling, local communities and visitor destinations.
The aim was not just to create jobs and to boost the economy in rural areas but to encourage more Scots, especially those from the central belt, to use forests for cycling, and to create and sustain a high-quality, well-managed, world-class all-season cycling product. To date, there are 15 purpose-built mountain bike trails and 130 forest cycle routes, covering around 1,300km. More are planned, and cycling tourism is on the increase.
Forest-related tourism brought in £160 million last year, so there is clearly a good market opportunity, if it is developed in the right way. However, I understand that the SNP Government is committed to selling off a quarter of Scotland's forests; if I am wrong, I am sure that the minister will tell me. Clearly, the policy could affect the mountain bike strategy, as some of the areas that could be sold off are those that might best be developed for forest cycling and mountain biking. I hope that the minister will give a commitment today to take account of access and recreation when considering any sales.
The SNP has said that it will invest an extra £15 million in new woodlands, funded through sales from the existing forest estate. Labour members trust that access and recreation issues, as well as nature and biodiversity, will be taken account of fully when decisions are made about what forest land should be sold. As the minister said, I hope that some of the cash that is raised will go to help groups such as the Piranhas to build their track and to encourage more people to get on their bikes. Who knows, the minister may even be invited along to open the site.
Green spaces in our towns and cities do not just offer desirable respite from an urban concrete wilderness, and we do not maintain them merely out of a sense of duty to protect the environment—they are essential to our health and well-being.
A recent study by Communities Scotland and Greenspace Scotland, among others, examined the evidence of the impact of green spaces on people's quality of life. It found numerous links between a poor local physical environment and low levels of physical exercise, with all the negative impacts that that has on people's health. Studies have also shown that green space speeds up the healing process. The impact of a touch of nature on an otherwise sterile world should not be underestimated. That is why the new national health service homoeopathic hospital in Glasgow has been designed to ensure that all in-patients have access to and a view of a garden area. If only the private finance initiative builders of Edinburgh's royal infirmary had been similarly enlightened about the importance of good design—simple design flaws there such as windows being set too high mean that people can see little, never mind get out and about to enjoy green space.
Good-quality green space also provides us with a focused social space and with opportunities to get involved in collaborative working. As Robin Harper mentioned, it can be used to educate children not only about the importance of wildlife but about improving their health and diet. Although Scotland's green spaces are improving, according to another recent survey by Greenspace Scotland, they are still failing to meet the needs of nearly half of the people in our towns and cities.
Here in Edinburgh, we can be rightly proud of the well-used, well-maintained diverse range of parkland and gardens in our city centre. However, many local green spaces, often in the most disadvantaged areas, remain neglected and unused, as they are not attractive or are not seen as safe places in which to spend time. That creates an environmental inequality that is unacceptable, but it is not inevitable.
A number of green space projects have already had a massive impact on local areas in Edinburgh. Greener Leith, which has organised projects such as pruning in Pilrig park and cleaning up Leith links, is worth mentioning for its outstanding contribution to improving neglected green spaces in that area of the city. Other successful initiatives, supported by the Edinburgh and Lothians Greenspace Trust, include the on-going, community-led transformation of a former quarry and landfill site in Wester Hailes.
Does the member acknowledge that, particularly in a city such as Edinburgh, green spaces that are improved will come under pressure, so the proposal for a statutory consultation on non-sport-related green space—which was a critical element of SPP 11—should be sustained? Will she at least allow that there should be further consultation on such matters?
As the minister explained earlier, there is a triple lock to protect green spaces in the urban environment.
Another space that is important in Scottish cities is the tenement back green. Over half the housing stock in Edinburgh—even more in Glasgow—is composed of tenements. The communal back green is a green step on our doorsteps. A regenerated community backyard can provide shared facilities such as safe play areas, organic gardens and composting centres for the surrounding area. Such regeneration is not just an ideal but is happening here in Edinburgh, as has been mentioned.
The Edinburgh community back green initiative, which took its inspiration from a regeneration project in Copenhagen, has worked with residents to develop seven sites in Gorgie and Dalry. That successful model will, it is hoped, be expanded to Leith and Fountainbridge next year and—lottery funding allowing—to other cities in Scotland. The initiative is an excellent example of a community enterprise. The success of such projects serves as evidence that local communities have the will to regenerate derelict land if the organisation, training and facilitation can be provided.
Green spaces are a vital ingredient in creating a sense of play, of belonging and of identity within our cities. Scotland is blessed with some of the finest green spaces in the world. It is up to all of us to ensure that everyone has a chance to appreciate them.
We move to wind-up speeches.
I would have thought that in a debate on the benefits of woodland and green spaces, it would have been a given that MSPs from all sides of the chamber would reach agreement. In opening, the Minister for Environment waxed lyrical about those benefits and, for a moment, I thought that he would be consensual—
I always am.
—and I thought that, in that spirit, he would accept amendments to his motion.
I am not that consensual.
As the minister has just said, he is not that consensual. He rejected the Labour and Liberal Democrat amendments. What does he object to specifically in our amendment? Does he object to the promotion of nature kindergartens and outdoor education centres or to the commitment to
"long-term funding to sustain better access for everyone to urban and rural woodland and greenspace"?
Those are not things that people should object to. Talk from the minister is cheap. The Government needs to provide funding support for the ideas, which all members agree on.
First, the amendment's call for "management contract incentives" is, as Mr Harper pointed out, quite contrary to what the motion is about. That issue is already dealt with under the Scottish rural development plan, which is where it should be discussed. Secondly, I am happy to be consensual; I would have discussed the terms of any amendment that had been brought for discussion.
Again, the minister completely misunderstands what our amendment is about. It is not about land management contracts. As the minister knows, that is not in the amendment.
The Liberal Democrat amendment is both reasonable and clear. We should create better public access, implement the core path network and provide long-term funding to sustain better access to the countryside for everyone. I say to Nanette Milne that our amendment cannot be called prescriptive in any fashion. She said that she did not see the necessity for the amendment. That is what the Conservatives sometimes say when they cannot find anything wrong with an amendment that they do not want to support.
The debate should not have descended into party politics. There are so many issues that genuinely divide us that it is rather silly to pretend that there is division on the key issues that we have discussed today. The Conservative amendment is an important amendment, which the Liberal Democrats will support. It is right that we should recognise
"the economic significance of woodlands and the need to support the development and expansion of Scotland's commercial forestry sector".
However, in doing that, we should not give the green light to every commercial development, as I am sure every member would agree. For instance, there is concern in my constituency that, when the Forestry Commission closes its office in Durris forest, it will try to realise the value of the site by building houses on it. We need to be careful about that.
Robin Harper said that the Greens might abstain on our amendment because of what it does not say. I find that difficult to understand. We could have put a long list of things into our amendment, but I do not think that that is the substantive issue.
Despite what Robin Harper and the minister seem to think, the amendment is not about giving money to farmers or land management contracts.
Yes, it is.
Let us ignore the minister's misunderstanding for the moment. There is nothing in any of the three amendments that MSPs from all parties should not feel able to support. As a result, I am somewhat disappointed by the tone of some front-bench comments, because I had expected us all to rally round and support not only the motion but the amendments. It is unfortunate that, instead of seeking unanimity across the chamber, some of us want to coorie up to each other instead. In any case, we will see what happens at decision time.
I begin by declaring an interest as a farmer and owner of some natural woodland. Over the years, I have derived much pleasure from time spent not only in woodlands but in looking at them from afar.
As Joe FitzPatrick pointed out, it is a matter of concern that, notwithstanding successive Government policies on afforestation and efforts by the Forestry Commission since the second world war, only 17 per cent of Scotland's land area is covered by trees. That compares poorly with the European average for woodland cover of 44 per cent. In addition, 30 per cent of ancient and semi-natural woodland has been lost since the 1940s. However, we must remember that some of that has happened as a result of conscious efforts by Governments to develop food production in Scotland. Indeed, my own observations suggest that the remaining ancient and natural woodlands are largely to be found only in the most difficult to access areas, on the poorest agricultural land or as a result of estate policy of maintaining woodland for sporting and amenity reasons.
Of course, pressures of food production on land use are about to re-emerge. Over the past 20 years of food production oversupply in the European Union, alternatives to using land for food production have rightly been developed. However, with food security becoming a worldwide issue, this pressure will return—although I am not certain that Rob Gibson's apparent suggestion of planting hazel commercially to provide hazelnuts is a viable option.
That said, in the terms of today's debate, we must support not only organisations such as the Scottish Woodland Trust and the RSPB but private landowners, who do an excellent job of developing and providing access to some of Scotland's most spectacular rural areas.
In my constituency, the Ayr gorge on the River Ayr way at Failford is one of the most beautiful parts of Ayrshire. Part of a 44-mile walk from the source of the River Ayr at Glenbuck to the sea, it is not only a haven for wildlife but a relaxing, restoring and therapeutic place. I agree with Jim Hume's point that we need to develop and maintain core path networks to provide access for young and old alike. When such paths run through woodland, they are, as Robin Harper suggested, likely to maximise our young people's educational and risk assessment capabilities.
As Nanette Milne said, exercise develops lungs and bones and helps to reduce obesity. The educational experience that is gained from walking through species-rich woodland should be encouraged as it delivers on so many desirable objectives, not least those highlighted in Nicola Sturgeon's statement on the health strategy.
Exercise for adults is becoming more important to our society's health, and the availability of interesting and beautiful walks in natural woodland, parkland or green belt close to one's home might make the difference between exercising or not. I hugely value my walk to Parliament on weekday mornings through the wonderfully maintained Holyrood park. Indeed, it would be hard to think of a better example of an interesting and therapeutic space.
I will mention the Conservative amendment, even if he is not going to. This afternoon, I inadvertently said that 12,000 people were directly or indirectly employed in forestry. I should have said that there are 26,000 people involved in the industry, 12,000 of whom are directly employed in it. I am sorry to interrupt the member with that correction.
I was just about to come to our amendment.
It is also important that woodland delivers commercial benefits where possible and satisfies our growing need for timber as well as supporting 12,000 jobs—or indeed 26,000 as the minister has suggested—and a £760 million industry. The Forestry Commission and private woodland owners must combine commercial timber production with recreational use where it is sensible to do so. I welcome the minister's announcement today of a further £100,000 to develop woodland and open space. A wonderful example of such an approach can be found at Glentrool forest in south-west Scotland, which integrates education, exercise, woodlands, forestry and open space.
Eco-schools must be encouraged further. I congratulate Braehead primary school in my constituency and Forehill primary school in Cathy Jamieson's constituency on having been recently awarded green flag status.
Eco-tourism, as developed in many of North America's national parks, should be taken forward in Scotland. We can learn from the Banff national park of Canada in particular.
The debate has been useful. I commend Nanette Milne's amendment to the Parliament and welcome the minister's support for it.
This is an important debate, perhaps because society has changed dramatically in the 30 years since I grew up in the Borders, when my friends and I played freely in the woods and fields that surrounded our homes. It has changed because parents are more protective, often with good reason, and reluctant to let their children play in the way that they did when they were young. It has changed because attitudes to exercise have changed as well: people are happy to play sport on a Nintendo Wii if they can get hold of one but not so keen to go out and run about outside. It has also changed because many of the woodlands and fields have gone and are now home to housing developments.
It is clear that all members have roles to play as parents, grandparents and significant adults in the lives of the children we know through the activities that we do with them and the presents that we buy. We have roles to play as legislators in the choices that we make about funding, the legislative framework that we put in place and the guidance that we provide to local authorities.
I draw to members' attention an event that links well to the debate: the world schools orienteering championships, which Scotland is hosting next year. It will be the first time that a world schools event has come to Scotland. The event will make use of woodland areas in rural Scotland and open space in the heart of the capital—I hope that it will use the good open spaces that we have outside the chamber—and links access to green space with sport and health. Will the ministers be prepared to meet me and the organisers to discuss how best the Government can support the championships when they come to Scotland in April?
I am happy to agree to do so. It is always a pleasure to meet Karen Gillon.
I thank the minister for that. As he knows, my constituency is full of good examples of open space, whether the Morgan glen in Larkhall, the Louden pond in Douglas Water or the proposals that were announced this week for Wilsontown, near Forth, where the local community, working with the Forestry Commission, will clear some woodland to allow access to historic bell pits and build on the success of historical walks that are being undertaken by local volunteers. That is a good example of how forestry can be disposed of with the consent of local communities. I would welcome clarification of the criteria that the Government will use when deciding what forest land will be considered for disposal. Access, recreation, nature conservation and biodiversity must be fully taken into account. I hope that the minister will deal with that in her closing speech.
I return to SPP 11 and why Labour members are concerned at the difference between the consultation draft and the published document. In particular, we view the omission of statutory consultation on non-sporting green spaces and the lack of proposed minimum standards of open space within developments as a retrograde step. I fully appreciate the minister's points about local authorities making decisions on protecting open spaces in their areas. However, if the past week in Aberdeenshire has taught us anything, it is that events are not always as they seem and that local authority decisions are not always as easy as we would like them to be. In my constituency, such policies might have provided people in villages such as Kersewell with a greater say in the developments on local fields or, at least, ensured that the approved development had play facilities and open space built into it. There are far too many developments where as many houses as possible are squeezed into as small a space as possible with little concern for the provision of open space. If we are serious about the health of Scots, that needs to change. Communities are not as tolerant as they once were of children playing in the streets, so open spaces must be provided in developments.
Members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee were made acutely aware this week of the shortage in housing—particularly affordable housing—throughout Scotland and the pressure that will continue on open spaces. It is vital that local authorities do not feel held to ransom by developers who know that local authorities need to provide housing to hit homelessness targets and are not forced into losing green spaces that are invaluable to our urban and rural communities alike.
I am disappointed that the Government is not prepared to accept the terms of our amendment, which simply asks for further consultation on an important issue. I am sure that the views of communities are held in as high esteem as the views of developers. I am not surprised that the Conservatives will not support our amendment.
Labour members are keen to work with all parties to ensure that everything that the Parliament does benefits all our constituencies rather than a particular vested interest. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government or those back benchers with a conscience will be prepared to vote for our amendment.
I will avoid any involvement in the competition over who has planted the most trees. Planting trees is not my strong point, although I have a Christmas tree that will be planted in the garden after Christmas—I hope that that counts.
The importance of spaces and places as contexts for promoting general health and physical activity is generally accepted. We have discussed the specific environments of woodlands and green spaces and the role that they can play in promoting health and positive well-being. That is particularly important in Scotland because, as everyone knows, we have a rather disappointing health record, which has been exacerbated by the part that has been played by environments that we have either created or neglected. By "neglected", I mean that we have a wonderful natural resource within reach that is often not used.
Foresight UK's recent report on tackling obesity made it clear that the causes of obesity are extremely complex—they encompass biology and behaviour, but those factors are set in a cultural, social and environmental framework. [Interruption.]
Order. I am sorry to interrupt you, minister, but far too many conversations are going on.
Foresight noted that our behaviour plays an important part in weight gain, but that that behaviour is constrained and shaped by today's obeso-, obesogenic, environment. [Applause.] Roll on Christmas.
We all recognise that obesity is an increasing problem and that it poses a serious threat to health. That is why we are making tackling the problem, particularly early in life, a high priority. Today's debate allows us to highlight the fact that although we can continue to try to treat obesity, one of our greatest challenges is to reshape the obesogenic environment.
We are making progress through the strategies on diet and physical activity that contribute to children and adults achieving and maintaining a healthy weight. Over the next three years, they will be supported by the provision of an additional £11.5 million. We have spent decades making our lives more convenient, which has often meant making them more sedentary and more car bound, with less outdoor activity. Only recently have we begun to heed the calls that such developments have brought unintended consequences, which have been seen most clearly in rising levels of obesity, particularly among our children.
I want to take this opportunity to reflect on the ways in which we can support people to change their behaviour. We know that too many of us are not active enough to maintain a healthy life. Scotland's physical activity strategy, "Let's Make Scotland More Active", was published in 2003 and is supported by a funded programme of activities that are aimed mainly at children and young people. Through the spending review, we have doubled that funding, with the result that a total of £12 million will be available over the next three years.
Of course, encouraging people to be more active in their everyday lives spans far beyond individual initiatives. We know that people are more likely to be active as part of their everyday lives in informal outdoor settings. If children and young people learn and play in woods and green spaces at a young age, they will be more likely to be active in them as adults.
At some point, will the minister address the crucial element of our amendment? Will she explain why the revised version of SPP 11, which removed the elements that have been identified in the debate, was not circulated widely, except to a stakeholder group? Will she support the amendment that allows for that broader consultation?
Rather than seeing that as a crucial element of Labour's amendment, I see it as a manufactured dispute that is part of the conspiracy theory that seems to be permeating the Labour Party these days.
Many important points have been made, for example by Joe FitzPatrick, about the connection between mental health and well-being and the use of woodland and green spaces. There are significant psychological benefits to be gained from engagement with what have been called therapeutic landscapes.
The cross-cutting nature of the work that we are doing is important, too. The Minister for Environment told us about the contribution to that of the work of the Forestry Commission, the development of whose corporate strategy has been influenced by the national physical activity strategy. That is another example of cross-cutting government, on which this Government is focused. I say to David Whitton that there are no plans to sell off a quarter of Scotland's forest land. Perhaps he should stop scaremongering about that.
Woodland and green spaces offer relatively inexpensive opportunities for people to become physically active and are truly inclusive only if barriers to using them are minimised. Access is not just about proximity. Some communities feel that woodland and green spaces are not for them, which is an issue. I say to Johann Lamont that the enhanced role for local government will strengthen the role of community partnerships in delivering in our more deprived communities the developments that we all want to happen.
I agree with Robin Harper that we need to ensure that parents feel that green spaces are safe. I take the point that he made about risk taking and I will reflect on his comments. I hope that members of all parties in the Parliament will accept the motion in the spirit in which it was intended.