Forestry
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3727, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on forestry.
We want to move on from the diversion of the past few months. There were sharply differing views, and the unanimous decision of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee was a vindication of the campaign by Forestry Commission Scotland staff, unions, members of the public and all those concerned about the future of our forests. I thank Roseanna Cunningham for accepting the inevitable, but I have a question for her. Last Thursday, when she was asked when she would announce the Government's response to the consultation, she said that she would take the decision in her own time. She announced her decision less than 24 hours later. When did she make her mind up? Would it not have been better to have announced her decision in the chamber on Thursday? However, I want to move on.
We have argued all along that the Rothschild proposals were ill thought out and did not have the benefit of a business plan. Having read the Forestry Commission's options paper, I believe that that view has been reinforced but, as I said, our intention today is to enable a debate that lets us move on and focus on the way forward.
The first issue that must be sorted out is the Scottish rural development programme. We have previously discussed the scheme's complexity and excessive bureaucracy, and it is clear that, in relation to forestry, it is not working on any level. The consultation responses demand an urgent streamlining of the process, but it is also clear that the level of support is not sufficient to persuade landowners, foresters, investors and farmers to plant trees.
The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment has already set in train a review. It would be good if the minister confirmed today that she is committed to increasing the level of financial support to boost applications, as set out in the Forestry Commission's options paper, because there are opportunities that need to be seized. The common agricultural policy health check recognises woodland creation as a means of helping to tackle climate change. Land afforested under the SRDP is now eligible for single farm payments, which would offer farmers the chance to remain in farming but transfer some land into forestry.
The Forestry Commission's figures show that its intention is to plant 5,000 hectares but that, if an extra £10 million were made available, the figure would rise to 8,000 hectares. We understand the worries about the loss of prime agricultural land or peatland areas, but enough land of a lesser quality should be available. The expansion needs to be managed properly, and we support the suggestion that a land use strategy be developed.
There is also the issue of CO2 absorption. The science is complex, and it is clear that forest planting can play a role—but only if it is done in a sustainable way. It is certainly not a get-out-of-jail-free card that means that the rest of us can avoid having to think about making carbon cuts in our use of energy and in our travel. Extra wood for sustainable buildings, for processing and for meeting the growing demand for biomass could play a part in a climate change strategy. Wood is also crucial for thousands of jobs, particularly in our fragile rural areas.
The other major contribution that the Forestry Commission can make to tackling climate change is to develop renewables on its own land. That was one of Labour's key policies at the previous election, and we believe that it is a vital part of the solution to the funding of new planting. Within five years, £10 million a year would be being generated to fund new planting and management—a virtuous circle of creating renewable energy and funding new forests to help tackle climate change. The £10 million would grow to £30 million a year, which would pay for a lot of tree planting and management. The challenge is how to address the crucial short-term period.
The SRDP is clearly important in attracting new planting and, with an uplift in grant funding, more people would be attracted to apply. Labour has consistently argued that we need to be spending Scottish Government money with the carbon implications clearly understood. The benefits that would come from properly managed new tree planting would score highly not only in value for money but in value for the planet. The financial gap is relatively small and short term.
The Scottish Government has choices. If ministers were to make a relatively small injection of investment to boost the value of grants, it would transform prospects. If they are serious about delivering on the target of an 80 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions, they have to put the financial investment into carbon-saving policies over the next decade.
Under Labour, we introduced the idea of repositioning, in which land is sold off and the income is recycled by the Forestry Commission, but the Confederation of Forest Industries—ConFor—makes the valid point that repositioning must not be the only source of new funding for planting. There is clearly some scope to increase the rate of repositioning in the first few years, but it would have to be done sensitively—there would be no point in knocking out the Rothschild proposal if our forests were to suffer death by a thousand smaller cuts. Repositioning could work on a short timescale—five rather than 75 years—and we would want a guarantee that, once the renewables funding kicked in, the Forestry Commission would buy new land and fund new tree planting to replace areas lost through repositioning for the public good.
In respect of the carbon contribution made by the Forestry Commission estate, there is also RSPB Scotland's point that the Forestry Commission's peatlands should be looked at as an option to lock in carbon.
There are options, and this is a matter of political will and support. Now that the leasing proposals are off the agenda, there is the space to look at better alternatives. It also means that there is confidence for the supply chain and continuity of supply, which means that the processing industry can move forward with greater confidence, and an opportunity to build the biomass industry and strengthen those supply chains.
The Forestry Commission is responsible for only a third of Scottish forests. Any strategy must therefore include the perspective of the forestry industry so that we gain maximum economic benefit from our forests. ConFor makes the point that the Scottish Government's target for planting was nowhere near being met last year. When the economy picks up, there must obviously be a role for the Scottish Government to encourage the building industry to use wood to ensure that our buildings are a much more sustainable product, but in the short term the challenge for the Government is to sort out the SRDP, increase the payment rates and get a move on with joint renewables projects. Given the clear parliamentary support that there is for the principle, ministers should accelerate the process so that, as soon as there is a legislative framework, schemes can be given the green light.
I welcome all the amendments.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the unanimous recommendation of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee that the Scottish Government drop proposals for leasing up to 25% of the Forestry Commission estate for a period of 75 years; welcomes the decision of the Scottish Government to amend the Climate Change Bill to remove the relevant clauses, and calls on the Scottish Government to bring forward its review of the operation of the Scotland Rural Development Programme urgently, including reviewing the level awarded for grants, and to pursue proposals for joint ventures to deliver renewables projects in the Forestry Commission estate.
Nothing that I have heard from Sarah Boyack this morning is new; it seems to me that this morning's debate is an exercise in wheel spinning. The fact is that this Government is showing leadership in addressing the urgent global problem of climate change.
It is clear that our forests can make an important contribution and that we must take full advantage of the opportunity that they offer. The technology report from the Atomic Energy Authority, which is not a reference that members will hear me use often, entitled "Mitigating Against Climate Change in Scotland: Identification and Initial Assessment of Policy Options", identified woodland creation as a high-priority measure.
Forests and woodlands have the advantage of bringing a wide range of other benefits. In addition to their environmental and social value, Scotland's forests contribute about £670 million to the Scottish economy and support more than 30,000 jobs in forest management, timber production and processing, and forest-related tourism, which by all accounts will increase this year. The wood processing industry has invested more than £250 million in the sector over the past three years.
The 2006 Scottish forestry strategy included an aspiration to reach 25 per cent woodland cover in Scotland by the second half of the century, which means creating at least 10,000 hectares of new woodlands each year. Achieving that target would lock up an additional 4.4 million tonnes per year of CO2 by 2050—for comparison, in 2006 total net greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland were 59 million tonnes.
Woodland creation on that scale would therefore make a significant contribution to our target of reducing emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, but it needs additional funding to the order of £10 million to £15 million per year. Our consultation on the forestry provisions in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill was about identifying opportunities for that funding, and I remind the Parliament that the proposals in the consultation, which were brought forward in the bill, were a means to an end—not an end in themselves.
We are listening because that is what consultation is about. That is what it has been about throughout the Government's tenure in office, although that might not have been what it meant before 2007. The consultation was open, and throughout the process we said that we would listen to views before taking any decisions, which is precisely what we did.
It is clear that the status quo is not an option. At 4,000 hectares per year, our tree planting rates are well below the aim of 10,000 hectares per year. After five to 10 years, we can expect additional funding for woodland creation on such a scale to come from renewable energy projects on the national forest estate. The estate has considerable potential for renewable energy development, and the Forestry Commission Scotland is vigorously pursuing the opportunities. The power to enter joint ventures will provide greater commercial flexibility.
By dropping the leasing proposal, we face a short-term funding problem for woodland creation for up to five years. The SRDP offers about £23 million per year for woodland creation, but to achieve our ambition for woodland creation we must increase that amount. We cannot simply raid other parts of the SRDP pot or the Scottish Government budget, as some respondents to the consultation thought was possible. That is why we are asking the Forestry Commission Scotland to explore further use of well-established arrangements that were introduced in 2005 for selling areas that are of least public benefit to raise money for investment in new woodlands.
The Forestry Commission Scotland selects for sale land that delivers a low level of public benefits with—for example—relatively little public access and use, limited community involvement and no significant natural or cultural assets that would be put at risk by sale. Potential options to increase funding include bringing forward the programme of sales—we are actively considering that—and using the proceeds to support woodland creation through the SRDP. I will meet the commission's national committee for Scotland next week to hear its views on that option.
Meanwhile, we are actively engaged in strengthening the forestry measures in the Scotland rural development programme. At Mike Russell's request, George McRobbie prepared a comprehensive report on the forestry industry's behalf about improving the SRDP's operation. That work will feed into our wider review of the SRDP, which is considering the extent to which it can assist us in meeting the challenges of the economic downturn. The wider review will also consider necessary changes to the SRDP's priorities and objectives and to the delivery mechanisms, and we expect to take decisions on that in May. That information has been well known to Sarah Boyack all along.
We have already implemented George McRobbie's suggestion that we remove the 200-hectare constraint on annual compensation payments to farmers, and by this summer we hope to increase the grant rates for woodland creation. The necessary modification is with the European Commission and, if it is agreed by Brussels, it will increase grant rates by about 17 per cent.
Following recent reviews of standard costs, we plan to submit another request to Brussels for further increases in grants. To help the industry plan, the Forestry Commission Scotland will shortly publish on its website information about the proposed increases to woodland creation grants.
The Government is committed to ensuring that forestry continues to make a major contribution to Scotland's economy and that it delivers social and environmental benefits, which include helping to meet our climate change targets. I do not think that there are any serious disagreements about our underlying aims. The challenge that we face is funding woodland creation in the next few years until renewables income comes on stream. I hope that we can look ahead and work together on that, but that means that people must be constructive and not simply negative.
I move amendment S3M-3727.3, to insert after "years":
"; notes that the Forestry Commission makes a major contribution to the economy of Scotland and can also make a major contribution towards helping Scotland meet its climate change targets".
All remaining speeches should be of about four minutes but we have a little flexibility, so members should feel free to take interventions if they wish to do so.
As ever, as a farmer I begin by declaring an interest in the subject, which is particularly important in your constituency, Presiding Officer. I welcome the tone of Labour's motion, which is a deal more positive and reasonable than the views that Labour previously expressed. I also welcome the Government's decision to drop its controversial leasing proposals and its new focus on finding different ways of raising funds to increase planting throughout Scotland.
We all want to find ways of reducing carbon emissions and increasing carbon sequestration. To that end, all members support the principles of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. In principle, we all support expanding the forest estate and raising money to do so through joint ventures, such as appropriately sited wind farms and hydro schemes, in which the Forestry Commission is involved in South Ayrshire.
Diversification of our forest estate to create extra income is not a new concept, merely one that should be pursued more vigorously. Given the rising cost of energy and the returns that can be made now and in the future from wind farming, raising significant amounts of money should not be a problem in the long term. I appreciate that the Forestry Commission has a short-term gap in funding to start land acquisition for extra planting, but that shortfall could be met if the commission sold some of its non-core assets, such as its nurseries or holiday cabins, and concentrated on its core business of growing trees. However, deciding which assets to realise is a matter for the commission.
Security of supply is essential in the forestry industry, which contributes £1 billion a year to the Scottish economy. The abandonment of the policy of blanket afforestation of Sitka spruce was appropriate, but it means that timber production is reducing by about 1 million tonnes per year. That needs to be replaced, and we need to plant about another 7,000 hectares every year to maintain existing supply, but that is a different goal from the Government's target of increasing planting cover from 17 to 25 per cent by 2050. It is important that further planting on such a scale is undertaken in the framework of an integrated land use strategy, because more competing demands are being placed on the finite resources of Scottish land than our Scottish landmass can cope with.
My well-known view is that, in this recession and afterwards, we in Scotland and the United Kingdom must retain our strategic ability to feed ourselves in as much as we can. That is why the first public benefit of land must be food production; other priorities should follow. The necessary housing target of building 35,000 new homes annually must be met, but it will swallow huge tracts of good and productive agricultural land. A target of 25 per cent forest cover by 2050 might be valuable for carbon sequestration, but increasing cover from 17 to 25 per cent will represent a 50 per cent increase and will come at a cost to food production at a time when the amount of land for producing food is reducing worldwide because of climate change.
I merely pose a question that must be asked: does a further huge expansion of our forestry industry still make sense? We must ask whether huge further afforestation is the most effective way of reducing through absorption our carbon footprint, especially if that reduces our food-producing capability. Do more obvious ways of reducing carbon emissions exist? If we are serious about carbon sequestration and reduction, we must create an integrated carbon sequestration and reduction strategy as well as an integrated land use policy.
Scottish Conservatives want a strong, growing and sustainable forestry sector that maintains the 30,000 jobs that it provides in rural Scotland. However, further massive expansion must be delivered in the context of a thought-through and fully developed integrated land use strategy. More work needs to be done to establish beyond doubt the true value to carbon reduction and sequestration of growing trees for timber on Scotland's hills and uplands. The science must be better; at the moment, it is not good enough.
Our party will work positively in and around the subject, which we look forward to debating in the future and at greater length.
I move amendment S3M-3727.2, to insert at end:
"and considers that all forestry proposals in future must be part of an integrated land-use strategy."
Needless to say, I am delighted to participate in the debate, which highlights the success of the Lib Dem-led campaign to save our forests. Roseanna Cunningham showed excellent timing when she announced the U-turn on the morning of the upbeat Lib Dem conference, so I thank her for that.
As Sarah Boyack was correct to say, it is time to move on, and the Liberal Democrat amendment does so constructively. What we witnessed in the past few months was not about new, inventive ideas to tackle climate change or being creative, although those terms were drummed into us; rather, a brazen and reckless attempt was made to undermine one of Scotland's most valuable assets by selling it off to the highest bidder.
Throughout the discussion, the Government resorted to petty personalised attacks on the Liberal Democrat campaign and treated industry, individuals and organisations—indeed, anyone who disagreed with its so-called great proposal—with contempt. Mike Russell even accused others of being theatrical. Such an attitude from a minister is shocking and, considering the potential impacts of leasing on Scotland and the scale of what was proposed, it was sheer arrogance to assume that the proposal could be pushed through Parliament by piggybacking on the simplistic idea that it would solve all our climate change problems.
Throughout the debate in January, Mr Russell accused the Liberal Democrat contribution and response to the consultation of being "fact free". He said:
"There is nothing so dishonourable as politicians who don't do their homework while confidently trotting out wildly inaccurate statements for political benefit."—[Official Report, 29 January 2009; c 14498.]
In fact, the Liberal Democrat response has proven to be entirely accurate and has reflected the views of land-based organisations, tourism providers, foresters and wood processors at every stage. Those businesses have been in serious limbo since last November and, in January, 19 of the main wood processors sent the minister a letter stating exactly that. That limbo was due to the Government's mad proposal and to the Tories, who did not stand up against it initially and made their U-turn only after their Scottish National Party masters had done so. Mike Russell ignored everyone, decried their expertise and passed them off as scaremongers who did not do their homework—what arrogance and ignorance.
Throughout the debate, references were made to the Stern report, but nowhere in that document did Lord Stern conclude that 100,000 hectares of Scotland's most commercially viable forests should be sold to the Rothschild banking group for a notional sum of up to £200 million for 75 years. In that same debate, Mike Russell pronounced in prophetic fashion:
"Although leasing is not a new idea, I believe that its time has come."—[Official Report, 29 January 2009; c 14497.]
Its time had come—its time to be buried with all the SNP's other misguided flights of fancy.
Who would have thought that, within a month, Mr Russell would be removed from his minister's position, obviously for flogging that dead horse? I welcome the new minister's U-turn, even though Ms Cunningham had thought the leasing proposal a "cunning plan" in January. I am sincerely relieved that sense has prevailed: the decision has removed the guillotine of uncertainty that was hanging over rural communities, which can now invest for the future.
It is now time to move on. We have an opportunity to implement, under the Forestry Commission's stewardship, sensible measures that will generate income for renewables, access, tourism and new tree planting and will guarantee the wood supply for our businesses. The Government should now concentrate on doing its best for Scotland through real and tangible measures to tackle climate change.
I move amendment S3M-3727.4, to insert at end:
"and further calls on the Scottish Government to introduce a comprehensive sustainable land-use strategy, taking into account the strategic economic, social and environmental impacts and benefits of forestry, agriculture, recreation and other land uses and setting out, where appropriate, the contribution each can make in dealing with the consequences of climate change."
I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. People might ask why the member for Dunfermline East, where coal mining has been highly important for many years, is speaking, but the reality is that my constituency is rural as well as having been highly industrial. In fact, Fife is now much greener than it has been for 200 years, thanks to previous Labour administrations in Fife Council that developed some outstanding green projects, helped by European funding. I am immensely proud of my Labour colleagues in Fife Council for the work that they have done on that.
I say to the Liberal Democrats—especially Jim Hume—that success has many fathers and failure is an orphan. My colleagues, led by Sarah Boyack, played a huge part in fighting the important campaign against the leasing proposals but, as we are always modest, we do not claim all the credit and recognise that it is shared.
As Sarah Boyack said, Scottish Labour welcomes the decision that the SNP made last week to ditch its plans to privatise a quarter of Scotland's forests. The decision follows a hard-fought campaign by Labour. Alex Salmond had to reshuffle his Cabinet because Michael Russell attracted so much criticism for the policy, and the SNP should apologise for attempting a hatchet job on Scotland's forest estate. It is shameless that, answering a supplementary to Wendy Alexander's oral parliamentary question last Thursday—which was submitted in writing a week in advance—Roseanna Cunningham said:
"I will make the decision when I make it"—[Official Report, 12 March 2009; c 15738.]
and then announced the following morning that she was ditching the policy.
We welcome the fact that the Forestry Commission can now get on with managing our forests effectively over the decades to come. We want there to be more renewable energy ventures—that is the key to tackling climate change—with the money that is generated being available to the Forestry Commission to invest in new planting.
The proposal to sell the forests is a typical example of the SNP rushing ahead with ill-thought-through plans and trying to bulldoze them through rather than set out detailed plans for proper consultation. For example, 133 written questions were submitted—mostly by Scottish Labour's rural and environment team—between the time that the Government made the proposal to sell the forests and Mike Russell's appearance in committee to answer questions on it. Fifty one of the answers to those questions—38 per cent—said in one way or another that a proper reply could not be given, as the answer would depend on the outcome of the forestry consultation. We all know the hostile responses to that consultation, but the SNP pressed ahead and included powers to sell the forest in its Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, which was published on 4 December.
The real impetus behind the leasing scheme was that timber demand is likely to exceed supply in a few years' time. We realise that more trees need to be planted, but that is nothing to do with climate change and, if that was the motive for the proposal, the bill was the wrong place for it.
I will point to one example in my constituency of actions that members across the Parliament can urge people in their localities to take. I persuaded Exxon, which is one of the big petrochemical firms in my constituency, to plant 5,000 trees, and I am proud that Exxon has taken that action, as it will help my area. If every MSP challenged their local firms to plant 5,000 trees each, we would give tree planting an enormous boost.
As we outlined in the debate in January, we want the Government to consider more alternatives for carbon sequestration. It could first consider protecting and, where necessary, reinstating soils rich in organic matter, such as peatland and blanket bog, which can sequester and store carbon.
The Government could encourage the use of wood for fuel and construction. We have heard much from the SNP about our Scandinavian partners. They use timber imaginatively to build homes for their people, and we should do much more of that in Scotland. The Government should encourage the use of local timber wherever possible to minimise carbon emissions from transport.
The Government could extend crop rotations to maximise carbon storage and promote the use of high-quality hardwoods. The SRDP could be reformed to maximise support for planting woodlands, timber protection and natural flood prevention schemes. Labour members have suggested such measures in the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee during its discussion of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill.
The Government could also develop a comprehensive land use policy that maximises the potential of the land to tackle climate change and its effects. That would best be achieved if the Scottish ministers retained direct control of the forest estate.
I am glad that the minister made the point that the debate on the forestry provisions in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill was about considering means to achieve an end, the end being to have more money to help our forests contribute to the fight against climate change. The Forestry Commission underlines how important that is when it points out that deforestation is estimated to account for 18 per cent—nearly a fifth—of global carbon emissions and that forest regeneration has taken place in Britain and other industrialised countries to the extent that forests in those countries are now absorbing CO2 again.
The debate on the forestry provisions was an attempt to get people's ideas about how we can achieve such regeneration, but it has begun to focus on one of the proposals in the consultation, which genuinely sought to get money that would allow us to kick-start at an early stage—as the Labour Party is always saying we should—our attempt to curb climate change through the Forestry Commission's work. Questions remain to be answered: as the minister has said, the gap in the money available for more planting has still to be filled.
When discussing the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill at the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee a week ago, I asked Stewart Stevenson whether any of the people who opposed the leasing proposals, which have been controversial, have made other proposals that might help us to raise funds for planting more forests to mitigate climate change. The minister said:
"The comments in the consultation have focused largely on what should not be done."—[Official Report, Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 10 March 2009; c 1697.]
He went on to make other points, but—
Will the member take an intervention?
Certainly.
I find it astounding that the member is hinting that no other suggestions were made whatsoever—that is not my reading of the responses to the consultation. The criticism was that the leasing proposals would undermine the strategic integrity of the Forestry Commission and would be damaging to its work. That was the problem that everybody had with the proposal.
The Forestry Commission's strategic role is in looking after a third of our forests. The Labour Party was in Government for eight years but is now saying to us that we need a positive policy on forestry. What was the Labour Party doing for all those years, when there was little planting? We are now trying to find the means of ensuring that planting takes place—although I think that Sarah Boyack and I agree that we have to speed up.
If we want to sell forestry land, we will have to find people to buy it. If Labour members want communities to buy it, they have to ask whether money will be available from the Big Lottery Fund. Much of that money has been sequestered in the east end of London. Communities are not being allowed to buy Government land with the help of the Big Lottery Fund, so Labour members have to tell us where the money will come from.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
Not at the moment.
When we talk about how to use our forests, we have to be clear that we need a strategy for land use. The Tories have made that point, and it is also mentioned in the Liberal Democrat amendment. Within the forests, we have to decide what type of forestry to use. We require more than just the clear-fell Sitka spruce stuff; we require managed forestry from which we can get building materials and fuel, and where forest crofts can be set up. However, that will depend on the Forestry Commission having an income.
In the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee and the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, we will be looking for ideas. I read the Labour Party's press release this morning: it said that we have to have a positive policy. What does LP stand for? Labour Party or lacking policies? The SNP has presented policies and is asking others to engage with them.
As I have said, few realistic efforts have been made to get money into the Forestry Commission for early development. That is our argument, and we should all work to find the answers.
Before I come to my substantive points, I place on record my welcome for the Government's change of heart on its leasing proposals in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. It is regrettable that the proposals were ever made, because they have overshadowed the scrutiny of the bill. Had the ideas been introduced in the original consultation, they would never have seen the light of day in the bill. We have to learn from that. However, if there is a silver lining, it is that the importance of forestry with regard to climate change has been highlighted: forestry is not just a cash cow but a means of capturing carbon and providing sustainable materials for energy and manufacture.
We need to acknowledge and appreciate the work of the Forestry Commission. As the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee explored the options, it became clear that the commission worked closely with all its partners, whoever they were, in industry, government or communities. We need to build on those relationships.
Joint ventures have received overwhelming support. They can provide an income stream for new planting. They can also be used to fight climate change by providing renewable, low-carbon energy generation. Joint ventures can involve wind and hydro power developments, for which our forest estate is perfectly placed. Most forestry land is away from settlements, so the negative impact of any developments would not be great.
Communities could enter into joint ventures with the Forestry Commission. In the past, when a community has been keen to develop renewables on commission land, the community has had to purchase the land at market value. Joint ventures would remove the need for communities to raise funds to buy such land and would allow them to develop their own energy plans and to develop renewables with the commission. The Forestry Commission has a good track record in working with communities, and that expertise will help in developing projects.
The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee scrutinised the use of timber when we considered climate change. Much of the discussion was about timber for energy, but we also need to focus on other uses for timber, such as building. When the leasing proposals were on the table, I was alarmed to learn that many building developments that used timber had stalled because of uncertainty. I urge the minister and the Government to ensure that research and development is restarted. We are in a difficult economic climate, and it is important that the Government ensures that such work takes place. Using timber in building means using more sustainable materials and can also mean providing better insulation.
We are all agreed that there needs to be more planting. However, it has become clear that there cannot be a free-for-all. We need to plant the right trees in the right places. Real fears were expressed by NFU Scotland that quality farm land would be used to speed up planting. It is important that that does not happen. Although we have to increase planting, we will have to ensure that we do not store up problems for the future.
It is vital that we learn from past mistakes, such as the huge square blocks of unsuitable trees that have been planted in the wrong place and which impact on the environment and scenery with no obvious gain, other than possible tax breaks for the landowner.
The Government has already agreed to draw up a land use strategy. However, it appears to be taking a long time to develop. I am not suggesting that we delay planting until it is complete, but the Government needs to consider the key principles so that decisions can be made on where and what to plant.
I welcome the minister's comments on the SRDP, for which we have been calling for some time. The SRDP will speed up planting.
I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to have this debate. During the previous debate on forestry, the Labour Party put across good, sound suggestions on the use and development of forestry. At the time, the suggestions appeared to go largely unheeded; the then minister was more interested in retaining a discredited policy. However, now that the policy has been ditched, I hope that the positive ideas that we put forward then, are putting forward again today, and will continue to put forward, will be heeded and acted on.
The Government's welcome and sensible change of heart over the leasing of our woodland has given us time to debate alternative funding sources, about which we have heard already. It has also given us a huge opportunity to continue debating a comprehensive policy on forestry—a policy that could do a great deal to maximise the potential for using home-grown timber in construction. Rhoda Grant has already mentioned that potential.
We have the opportunity to explore the possibilities that are opened up by a construction technique that, for each house built, could offer carbon savings that are equivalent to the normal total greenhouse gas emissions of a standard house—including the emissions from its construction and from its heating throughout its lifetime. Massive timber construction has been developed in Switzerland and is already being investigated in Scotland. The construction technique allows even timber of quite poor quality, such as that from the lowly Sitka spruce, to be fixed together with hardwood dowels to provide solid beams that can span distances of 30ft and are capable of supporting even concrete floors. The wood can be made into slabs of between 4in and 1ft thick, and can be carved and shaped to millimetre accuracy. In relation to the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, the argument for the development of that construction technique in Scotland is overwhelmingly persuasive.
I will use the example of Acharacle primary school in the Highlands, which will be handed over to Highland Council in the next few weeks. With walls, floors and roofs made almost entirely of massive timber, the school will not only sequester more than a million kilograms of carbon dioxide over its 100-year lifespan, which is acceptable under the Kyoto agreement, but displace several million more kilograms of CO2 that would have been produced had the school been constructed from steel, concrete and brick.
However, even if we were not facing climate change chaos, there are other strong arguments for using massive timber, the first of which is cost. If home-grown timber is used, the costs will be comparable to any other form of construction. A great advantage of accurate prefabrication is that buildings perform to expected standards when completed, so there are no hold-ups as a result of mistakes and faults in construction and therefore no ensuing expenses.
The high energy efficiency standard that has already been set for passive houses is met comfortably by Acharacle, with room to spare, in terms of airtightness and heat loss. Acharacle will use 15W per square metre, while an average house uses well over 10 times that. Particularly important for children and schools is the fact that massive timber buildings have excellent acoustics and, indeed, air quality. Because no glues are used in the assembly of Brettstapel massive timber, there is no off-gassing of the kind of chemicals that many paints, finishes and glues give off and which, according to increasing evidence, exacerbate the problems of children who suffer from asthma and allergies.
I should also point out that Gaia Architects had to import all of the massive timber for Acharacle school from Austria, not only at an environmental cost of 50,000 kilograms of CO2 as a result of transporting the material but at extra financial cost because of currency fluctuations.
Wood is still the best building material that we know for Scotland. It is durable and can be easily cut, formed, steamed, shaped and now dowelled together to provide an all-purpose building material. Counterintuitively, as the necessary tests have demonstrated, it even resists fire better than standard buildings. We have the land, the trees and the expertise to take full advantage of a golden opportunity to build to the very highest ecological standards, save money and the planet, and create hundreds and even thousands of permanent new jobs in a flourishing wood materials industry. All that we need is a forestry policy—and, of course, a research and development policy—to take that vision forward.
I am paraphrasing, but I believe that it was Prime Minister Harold Macmillan who, when advising a young, up-and-coming Tory MP on his political career, warned him, "Beware events, young man, events." Since our previous forestry debate, a number of things have happened in the wider world outside the Parliament. Two space satellites collided in orbit, a new Minister for Environment was appointed, and the Government dumped plans to lease nearly a quarter of the Scottish forest estate. As I am neither young nor up-and-coming, I will leave it to other members to weigh up the relative significance of each event.
Since the previous debate, Mike Russell, who is seen as a rising star in ministerial ranks, has moved on to greater things and Roseanna Cunningham has been handed the poisoned chalice of the leasing scheme. That said, I have not yet had the chance to congratulate Ms Cunningham on her promotion, but I do so now. In my speech, I will focus briefly on the scheme, as other members have rightly done, and will also consider some of the more positive aspects of the forestry agenda, including joint ventures, which have already been mentioned, and tackling climate change.
Where did the idea of leasing a quarter of the forest estate for 75 years come from? As others have pointed out, the scale is breathtaking. We are talking about around 100,000 hectares, which is roughly the size of Fife, with, of course, the knock-on effect of the loss of around 35 per cent of Forestry Commission income. In response to a parliamentary question, Mike Russell made it clear to me that
"Rothschild approached the Scottish Government with ideas about the national forest estate."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 9 February 2009; S3W-20106]
Subsequent answers have provided evidence that Rothschild, ministers and officials met six times between October 2007 and July 2008. However, I have not received within the time limits a response to my freedom of information request to see the minutes and record of the discussions. Perhaps the minister can speak to her officials to see whether we can move things along.
However, to be fair, I received at the 11th hour an analysis of the consultation responses on the leasing scheme. As members have pointed out, almost 75 per cent of them were negative. For example, one respondent said:
"Offering long leases is tantamount to privatisation",
while on page 5 of the document we read:
"This land is owned by the people of Scotland and should remain firmly in the control and management of the Forestry Commission."
Respondents also expressed concern about Forest Enterprise jobs, with at least 3,500 people signing the Forestry Commission trade union petition; the creation of a less predictable wood supply for processors; and experience from abroad of leasing forest estates. In New Zealand, for example, lessees went bankrupt and jobs were lost. Also, when the Swedish Government sold off much of its national forest estate to a company, the company raised log prices, which caused sawmills to go bankrupt.
Edward Shepherd, the Forestry Commission's trade union secretary, predicted in The Scotsman of 4 December 2008 that the whole 25 per cent would be given out in "one whopping great lease" to an international investment company. He went on to say that
"Although the minister"—
Mr Russell—
"is not attempting to privatise the land, he would be privatising its management and control."
Now that the leasing liability is behind us, I welcome the fact that the Forestry Commission will be able to get on with managing our forests effectively in the decades to come. For example, joint ventures in renewables will provide a win-win by raising funding, developing renewable capacity and helping to mitigate climate change.
As we all know, timber demand is likely to exceed supply in a few years' time, which means, of course, that more trees will need to be planted. In my few remaining seconds, I ask the minister to confirm in her winding-up speech that all new planting, including planting that is not in receipt of grant, and work under planning consent should meet United Kingdom forestry standards.
We have a high-value product with strong export potential. Indeed, I will finish with a snapshot from history: pulp from Irvine was once exported to Manhattan for the production of Time magazine. Through skilful management of the economic, environmental and social dimensions, we can preserve and develop Scotland's rich, natural assets.
It is important that we remember why the Government proposed the leasing of some of our forestry in the first place and ensure that forestry's climate change benefits are not overlooked as the Opposition gloats over its apparent success in being listened to in a consultation. What a novelty—the Government listened. Obviously, the concept is alien to the Opposition.
Our Scottish Government is committed to tackling climate change and is preparing to deliver the challenging target of reducing Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. It also wants 50 per cent of Scotland's electricity to be produced from renewable sources by 2020. In 2006, the Stern review highlighted forestry's potential role in dealing with climate change and the benefits of strong, early action, and the consultation on the forestry provisions in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill was part of that approach.
As everyone will agree, there is absolutely no doubt that woodland creation can contribute cost effectively to net emissions reduction and that there is great potential to increase Scotland's woodland and forest area to take more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Indeed, one aspiration in the Scottish forestry strategy is to achieve 25 per cent woodland cover in Scotland by the second half of the century, which would lock up an additional 0.2 million tonnes of carbon per year by 2020 and an additional 1.2 million tonnes by 2050.
Those are great ambitions, and they are exactly the kinds of actions that we need to take to counter the dangers of climate change. However, as soon as our visionary Government puts its head above the parapet and makes a new and exciting suggestion, the moaning Minnies appear with a hundred thousand reasons why it will not work. Those people oppose everything but propose nothing.
By "the moaning Minnies" does the member mean the Scottish Wildlife Trust, the wood processing industry or the 9,000 people who contributed to my survey on the issue, 97 per cent of whom stated that they were against the leasing proposal?
The Opposition parties—the majority of them, anyway—misled the public and misrepresented the situation.
Oh!
Those moaning Minnies, who never come up with anything positive, oppose everything but propose nothing. We have heard nothing new from any of them today. In addition, they resort to distorting the truth to mislead the public. Indeed, we have heard more of that during this debate. Honest debate is not helped by misrepresentation.
I will give members an example of what I mean. The proposals to lease part of our forests were thoroughly worked out and a decision was made to include an area of 115,000 hectares of productive forest in the south and west of Scotland. If my geography is correct, Inverness is not in the south or west of Scotland, which would have meant that forests in the Inverness area, such as Culloden wood and Craig Phadraig wood, would not have been affected by the proposals. How silly of me! I had completely forgotten that the truth is a stranger to the Liberal Democrats, who contrived to conjure up headlines in the local press that said that Culloden and Craig Phadraig woods were in grave danger.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
I say to Mr Hume that that was misrepresentation. According to the Lib Dems, the popular forest walks would be cordoned off, never to be available for public use again. They either did not understand or did not care about the truth.
Our London-based Lib Dem MP, Danny Alexander, said:
"The Government is using ‘slash and burn' tactics, when some of the Highlands' most iconic and well-used outdoor attractions are at stake."
John Farquhar Munro MSP joined Danny Alexander and a local Lib Dem councillor for a photograph in Craig Phadraig wood, and waded in with his false predictions of doom, saying:
"The potential impact on key Forestry Commission sites for public access and for wildlife—from Culloden and Craig Phadraig to Glen Affric and Glenmore—is only half the story."
What complete and utter tripe. They misrepresented the truth and misled the public. Such dishonest and disreputable politics disillusions people and gives us all a bad name. The perpetrators of deceit may gain some short-term political advantage, but we all lose out in the long run and democracy suffers.
We now move to the wind-up speeches.
I did not participate in the debate on forestry in January. My constituency can lay claim to many wondrous attributes, but a tree-covered landscape and a vibrant timber industry are not among them. It was more appropriate, therefore, that my Highland and South of Scotland colleagues took the lead in giving voice to the serious concerns that constituents were expressing. However, I did sit through the debate and, like many, I was staggered by Mike Russell's approach. Like David Stewart, I make no apology for taking the opportunity to spend a little time looking back, but I probably will not go back as far as the Macmillan era. The self-styled listening minister refused to take interventions and lectured members in the chamber on what he called "the facts". That was a dangerous tactic, as he was later required to return to the chamber to apologise for misleading MSPs, albeit inadvertently.
The contrition shown on that occasion was commendable, but I believe that a further apology is due to my colleague Jim Hume, who successfully led the broad-based campaign in opposition to Mr Russell's ill-conceived proposal. Notwithstanding Helen Eadie's claim about the parenthood of success and failure, a measure of Mr Hume's effectiveness was surely the extent to which he discomforted the former Minister for Environment, whose response was highly personalised and insulting. An apology is perhaps owed, too, to Mr Russell's colleague Rob Gibson, who was left as the last man in the trench defending a proposal that was hatched in the Rothschild boardroom in New York. However, an apology is certainly owed to all those individuals, businesses, organisations and communities—dare I say, an historic coalition and not "moaning Minnies"—that raised their voice in opposition to the Government's plans.
For Dave Thompson's benefit, I say that those plans came from nowhere, lacked any real detail and were rushed through a consultation that spanned Christmas and new year. Stuart Goodall of the Confederation of Forest Industries told the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, but obviously not Mr Thompson, that the confederation
"would have preferred more time, or perhaps an opportunity prior to the consultation, to focus on alternative ways of … delivering an increase in new planting and finding funding for that."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 11 February 2009; c 1422.]
With a mixture of assertion, bombast and hubris, however, Mr Russell declared his proposals a "win-win for Scotland" with "no downsides". That was frankly ludicrous, and it was made clear in evidence to the committee, despite Mr Gibson's touching confidence in Stewart Stevenson's assurances, that the afforestation objectives could be achieved through joint ventures.
The Liberal Democrat amendment suggests that we require a land use strategy. When are we going to hear how we will raise the money to plant more trees?
Well, we certainly will not necessarily go to Rothschild for advice.
We will never know whether Mr Russell would have had the good grace or sense to ditch his plans, but I welcome the speed with which his successor moved to deal with what ConFor rightly described as an unnecessary "distraction". Welcome, too, was the Tories' belated recognition that even they could not find a way to back the Government on this issue. It was at times painful to watch the intellectual contortions that Tory MSPs performed to avoid agreeing with Liberal Democrats that the leasing plans were unworkable.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I do not have the time.
It is imperative that there is no slippage in the timetable for ministers bringing forward a comprehensive and integrated land use strategy. Ideally, such a strategy—and, indeed, the national waste plan—should have preceded Parliament's consideration of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, given the range and extent of the enabling powers that ministers seek in it. I hope that the minister can reassure members that that will remain at the top of her to-do list over the coming weeks.
Vital though forestry is, for the reasons suggested in Roseanna Cunningham's amendment, it is nonetheless part of a wider debate about land use. That is the essence of our amendment and of John Scott's, which we support, and it is also a point that the RSPB Scotland made. The debate about forestry really cannot be seen in isolation and, as the RSPB suggests, we need to consider more broadly
"how sustainable land management can help address some of the impacts of climate change."
For example, Sarah Boyack suggested that the role of peatland is considerable and perhaps underestimated.
Beyond climate change, we need to consider the economic impacts. Forestry and wood-using businesses contribute £700 million to the Scottish economy, often sustaining some of our more fragile communities. However, ConFor estimates that tree planting fell last year to a low of 3,000 hectares, which presents real challenges economically as well as environmentally. ConFor has made constructive suggestions, including on short leases and changes to the SRDP. I welcome the minister's commitment to produce conclusions in May from the review of the SRDP. However, as John Scott made clear, as we consider food security and the dramatic loss of livestock in some parts of our country, there are no easy solutions to managing competing demands for land use.
Our amendment looks ahead, but the minister and her SNP colleagues cannot complain about the tone of the debate. The tone was set by Mike Russell, and dismissing criticism as scaremongering is simply not good enough. I hope that lessons have been learned by the Government. I urge Parliament to support the motion and all three amendments at decision time.
Although I wondered about the wisdom of Labour's decision to debate forestry for the second time in seven weeks, we have had a worthwhile debate that has moved our thinking on significantly from the debate that we had in January. However, as usual, the tone of the Lib Dem speeches was somewhat discordant with the mood in the chamber.
There is clear consensus that, in view of the uniformly hostile response to the Government's proposals to lease 25 per cent of the forestry estate, the Government was right to drop them. We were pleased by the minister's statement last Friday in that regard. There is no doubt that forestry is important to the Scottish economy in terms of tourism, recreational and sporting activity, and, of course, as a source of the timber that is increasingly being used by the construction industry as a substitute for concrete and steel, and as a fuel source, with the potential to make a serious contribution towards meeting Scotland's renewable energy targets. Forestry is also important for our biodiversity, because it provides a habitat for many species of wildlife and vegetation. It has a significant contribution to make, too, in locking up carbon, although how much is debatable. We welcome the Forestry Commission's on-going review of carbon science, which is perhaps much more complex than was hitherto realised.
Commercial forestry's 39 per cent growth in the past decade is indicative of its economic potential. However, we are still far from achieving the 25 per cent forest cover to which the Government aspires and which would mean expansion of our woodland by 10,000 hectares per annum, as several members have said. That could have serious implications for biodiversity and agriculture. Like the RSPB and NFU Scotland, we hope that the Government's forthcoming land use review will enable a strategic approach to be taken to managing Scotland's land in relation to food production, wildlife adaptation and climate change mitigation. Forestry must not be looked at in isolation. It must be considered alongside other, competing land uses, not least because an increase in afforestation from 17 to 25 per cent could have a significant impact on agricultural land, much of which has already been lost to housing and industrial development.
Food security is increasingly important in a hungry world, and careful thought must be given to any significant diversion of land from primary food production. On the other hand, sensitive and well-thought-out woodland expansion, involving the sustainable maintenance of forests alongside other land uses, will help to safeguard biodiversity. It will also allow us to address some of the impacts of climate change and help us to meet our climate change targets.
We have heard about some of the opportunities that could come from the pursuit of joint ventures between the Forestry Commission and other interested parties and which would help to generate the huge financial investment that will be needed if planting targets are to be met. There are exciting possibilities for renewable energy and other projects, and we agree that the Government should pursue them.
Would the Conservatives consider helping us to urge the Treasury to examine how tax incentives can be used to generate more planting? Is that a good idea?
That is debatable. The use of tax incentives has brought bad as well as good results, so I would need to give the idea careful thought.
We agree that with appropriate and well-directed resourcing, the SRDP could make a more significant contribution to sustainable and carefully targeted woodland expansion. The issue should be addressed with some urgency. The Government's other fundraising proposals, such as the sale of surplus Forestry Commission land, are also worthy of consideration.
If Parliament accepts what has been proposed and debated this morning, I hope that we will look to forestry playing an increasingly important role, but if we are to achieve a successful and sustainable future for the people of Scotland, forestry must be integrated with agriculture, housing development and all the other activities and industries that must coexist in our relatively small land mass.
I would like to say that the debate has been useful and constructive, but as I am not allowed to lie to the Parliament, I will not. I kept waiting for the positive stuff, but with one or two honourable exceptions, most Opposition members appeared to run out of time before they got to that bit of their speech.
When I saw the Press Association coverage of what the Labour Party had put out, I was highly amused. Apparently, the Scottish Government faces calls for a programme of tree planting across the country's forests. Well, duh! What have we been talking about for the past two years? Labour talks about joint ventures, even though it is obvious that such ventures are being actively pursued. We have in front of us a motion that starts with a restatement of the obvious, calls on us to do something that we are already doing, asks us to pursue proposals on joint ventures that we are already pursuing and mentions the need for the SRDP to be reviewed, when a review is weeks away from completion.
Although the amendments are perfectly acceptable, one of them asks us to consider forestry proposals as part of a land use strategy, when that is already happening. I remind all members that land use issues are key to almost all the areas that are covered by the rural affairs and environment portfolio, so we are fully conscious of the competing demands and priorities.
Interestingly, the motion says absolutely nothing about climate change.
The minister mentioned joint ventures. I ask her to re-examine the joint venture in the Carron valley forest that was scuppered by her predecessor. That venture, which involved the voluntary and private sectors, was scuppered to suit her Government's policy.
I will undertake to do that, if the member is so desirous of pursuing the matter further. We know that joint ventures are under way. Sarah Boyack mentioned the challenges of the next five years, but she offered no ideas on what could plug that gap, which is the one that needs to be filled.
We then heard from the Liberal Democrats. Jim Hume and Liam McArthur need not congratulate themselves too fulsomely because their campaign was one of disgraceful misrepresentation and scaremongering. We saw that again today—the Liberal Democrat speeches were negative and backward looking, and they contributed nothing.
The leasing proposal is, of course, the one that created all the controversy and argument, but we forget what its purpose was. I remind members that it was a means to an end. The end was helping us to meet the challenge of climate change. We must think out of the box when we deal with climate change. The leasing proposal was an example of that approach, to be sure. As someone who lived abroad for many years, I think that one of the most depressing things about Scotland is that when anyone does any out-of-the-box thinking, there is a queue down the road and round the block of 100 folk who can give thousands of reasons why what has been proposed cannot be done. Ninety-nine of the people in that queue will be members of the Labour Party. On today's evidence, the other person will be a member of the Liberal Democrats.
One of the most depressing aspects of our society is that too many people say what cannot be done, but they do not follow that up with what can be done. Helen Eadie exemplified that attitude. She called on us to do what we are already doing, quoted chunks of the Labour Party's briefing and gave us nothing by way of a positive response. Rob Gibson and Dave Thompson made excellent points about the negativity that has been evident in the debate.
I acknowledge that Robin Harper, at least, had a positive suggestion to make. He raised the issue of massive timber with me on a previous occasion, so I raised it with the Forestry Commission. I can advise that the Forestry Commission is aware of the potential of massive timber and that at least one Scottish company is already investigating the technology. That is a positive contribution, but it still does not deal with the next five years. I think that even Robin Harper would accept that the use of massive timber does not offer an immediate, short-term answer, because we must get the technology in place.
Frankly, I am disappointed by the ridiculous response to a consultation that put out ideas for consideration. That response was all about what we could not do and had very little to say about what we could do. This Government is about what we can do, and we will continue to take that approach.
When the motion was lodged, we had not had the announcement that the Scottish Government was to abandon its plans to lease out 25 per cent of the Forestry Commission's estate, even though, as Helen Eadie pointed out, the Government had the opportunity to make the announcement in Parliament last Thursday.
Roseanna Cunningham said nothing new and was remarkably churlish, given that the motion congratulates her. We have argued for the alternatives to the SNP's proposal all along, and I am pleased that the Government is now pursuing them. An extraordinary grumpiness pervaded all the speeches of SNP members, and they made little in the way of positive suggestions. The expression "sore losers" comes to mind.
Most members of the Parliament were genuinely pleased by last Friday's announcement, which meant that today's debate has given us an opportunity to explore alternative ways of increasing forest cover and to examine the role of forestry in mitigating climate change. As Rhoda Grant said, it is heartening to learn how highly the Forestry Commission's work is regarded. Congratulations are due to the Forestry Commission trade unions, the timber industry representatives, such as ConFor and the UK Forest Products Association, the environmental non-governmental organisations, the tourism and leisure interests, and the political parties—the Labour Party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Green party and, latterly, even the Tory party. We welcome their campaign and last Friday's decision.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry—my time is limited.
I am not sure that Roseanna Cunningham's predecessor would have been as able to make the sensible decision, give the sometimes arrogant way in which he dismissed genuine concerns as "scaremongering". The spirit of Mr Russell seems to live on in his colleagues. In December, in answer to an oral question, Mr Russell stated:
"Labour members will be judged on their inability to engage with forestry and climate change or to think constructively."—[Official Report, 11 December 2008; c 13367.]
In January, in response to another oral question on the issue, he said:
"There are members in the chamber whose behaviour has been disgraceful."—[Official Report, 22 January 2009; c 14321.]
On that occasion, I think that he was referring to Jim Hume and me.
In February, Mr Russell told the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee:
"I believe that the leasing proposal is worthy of the committee's support … and … needs to proceed."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 11 February 2009; c 1449.]
Time has told whether it was Labour members or Mr Russell who engaged most effectively with the forestry sector. David Stewart described the problems that Mr Russell's pet project would have caused. Let us all be grateful for a fresh pair of eyes at the ministerial desk, however ill-natured those eyes seem to be this morning.
Contributions to the debate have brought positive, thoughtful suggestions for alternatives to leasing out the forestry estate and have reflected on the wider issues of land use, and other action that can be taken to reduce carbon emissions and to sequestrate carbon. There has been strong support among members for joint ventures, and for renewable energy projects such as small-scale hydro, biomass and wind generation. However, I sound a note of caution with regard to some of the major large-scale wind turbine developments in forests, which require the felling of trees on a large scale. Sometimes, those trees cannot be used by the timber industry because they have not been certified. In addition, there is major soil disturbance when the concrete bases are inserted. The projects that take place on the forest estate must be the right ones.
The Scottish Government could provide a budget for the purpose of forestry planting, should it wish to do so. After all, £70 million has been allocated every year to freezing the council tax, and the small business bonus scheme cost £73 million in 2008-09. If the Scottish Government really wanted to allocate a budget, it could do so. However, in the absence of additional Government funding, a recent review of options suggested that increased funding could be generated by the repositioning of the estate. I am pleased to learn that ministers are pursuing that. Whatever Rob Gibson thinks, such a policy was brought in by the previous Labour Administration.
Woodland creation on private land is supported through the rural development programme, which is another area that Labour believes needs to be considered. I welcome the fact that the minister is talking to Brussels about increasing the amount of funding that is available for forestry planting.
However, an element of caution needs to be applied. As other members have said, planting woodland is not a magic wand for mitigating climate change. Although 33 per cent of the land of Scotland is considered appropriate for woodlands, there are other competing demands; as John Scott said, agriculture and food production is one such demand. As he also said, the science of carbon sequestration is very complex, and woodland expansion must be environmentally sensitive. We need to avoid the mistakes of the past.
The land use review is an opportunity for a strategic examination of the competing requirements for land. We believe that plans for increasing woodland cover must be balanced with the demands for food production, flood prevention and nature conservation.
As others have said, afforestation is not the only answer. Several alternatives are proposed in the consultation responses. I have mentioned them previously, but since the SNP seemed unable to listen, I will mention them again. First, restoration of conservation of peatlands and wetlands to maintain and increase carbon sequestered in soil is vital. Secondly, longer crop rotation cycles would allow trees to reach maturity and maximise their role in sequestration. The third option is the appropriate use of native woodlands and broadleaved trees, and the fourth is the use of wood for construction instead of concrete. I was interested in Robin Harper's contribution regarding the way in which wood construction techniques can produce energy-efficient buildings. That is well worth considering.
The slogan, "the right tree in the right place at the right time" has been repeated during our consideration of the forestry proposals in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. The decision to drop the leasing proposals may not have been made at the right time, and it may not have been made in the right place, but it was the right decision. I give the minister that, despite the rather grumpy nature of her contribution.