Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Official Report 797KB pdf

---

Topical Question Time

---

Ash Dieback

1. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce the threat to forests from ash dieback, or Chalara fraxinea. (S4T-00090)

I declare an interest as a farmer.

I thank the member for raising the issue. The Scottish Government is extremely concerned about the threat from ash dieback, and is working closely with the United Kingdom Government to try to eradicate or contain the disease.

On 29 October, the UK Government imposed restrictions on imports and movements of ash plants and seeds into and within Scotland and the rest of the UK. Ash planting had already been suspended on land managed by the Forestry Commission Scotland.

Ash dieback has been identified on one site in Scotland’s national forest estate, and all the plants have been removed and destroyed. A second planting site in Scotland is now under investigation. There has also been one confirmed nursery infection in Scotland. All infected trees are to be destroyed by the end of October.

It has been estimated that 80 million trees could be infected with the disease in the UK. What steps has the Scottish Government taken to assess the number of trees that could become contaminated in Scotland? I am grateful that the Scottish Government is collaborating with the UK Government to determine the best course of action, but can the minister say how many trees are at risk?

Around 1 per cent of Scotland’s tree population is made up of ash trees, and a substantial area is under cover: there are 11,700 hectares of ash in Scotland alone. Ash is not the largest tree species in Scotland, but it is clearly important for the biodiversity of our national forests.

Surveys are under way of all other nurseries and planting sites that have plants from potentially infected sources since 2007 and of ash sites that were identified as having potential health issues during the national inventory survey and the native woodland survey of Scotland. Earlier in October, the Forestry Commission Scotland issued a briefing that advised woodland owners and managers of the threat from Chalara dieback of ash. Advice is also being provided on alternative species that are suitable for planting on native woodland sites.

What is the Scottish Government doing to make the public and owners of trees aware of the disease and its signs and symptoms? Given the difficulty of identifying the disease in the autumn months, does the cabinet secretary, with the benefit of hindsight, now wish that he had made the Parliament aware of the presence of the disease in Scotland before now?

John Scott has raised the issue of the awareness of the disease. It is worth pointing out that, in Scotland, the presence of the disease was first suspected in July this year. In England, its presence was suspected in February and confirmed in March. We had no reason to believe that it was present in Scotland until July, and its presence was confirmed only in August. Thereafter, we took decisive action in removing all the infected trees from the national forest estate site that I identified, at Kilmacolm in Renfrewshire.

On the question about my regret for not making the Parliament aware of the presence of the disease prior to now, it is worth noting that, when the disease was first identified, it was misunderstood. It was expected that a different fungus was causing the problem, so there was a delay in recognising the fungus in its own right. Obviously, action has been taken at the UK and Scottish Government levels thereafter.

The minister will be aware of newspaper reports that the Forestry Commission was aware of the threat of ash dieback as far back as 2009. When exactly did the Scottish Government and the Forestry Commission Scotland first become aware of the threat of ash dieback and what action was taken then to stop the disease spreading?

The member is correct in her assessment that Scotland has been aware of the disease. Work is on-going to identify exactly how it is being transmitted to the UK and within the UK.

As I said in response to John Scott, the disease was first identified in Scotland in July and was confirmed in August. Until that point, there was no evidence of its presence in Scotland. We are now undertaking extensive survey work to identify the extent of its presence in Scotland. I assure the member that we will do everything that we can to move forward, to manage the disease effectively and to try to eradicate it in the best way possible.

One high-risk pathway for the disease’s entry to the UK is through imported ash saplings. Many such trees are of Scottish provenance but have been grown in Europe before being imported back, potentially with the disease. Supporting such sapling nursery business in Scotland would seem more beneficial. What can the minister do to support that industry, especially now that the import ban is in place?

Alison Johnstone is right to raise an important point. It was not necessarily understood that the recent infection was of seedlings that were taken on to the continent and then brought back. Growing on seedlings in continental Europe and then bringing them back is a well-established practice. We are trying to make buyers aware of the risk that seeds that have been germinated here, transported to the continent and brought back could be a transmission source.

As I said, we are trying to understand exactly how the disease is transmitted. I understand that one suspicion is that it can be carried on the wind by up to 20km at a time. On a visit to Roslin this morning, I spoke to Forest Research researchers who said that exactly how the disease is transmitted is still uncertain. We need to do more work through Forest Research and other agencies to identify the exact risk.

---

Borders Railway

2. To ask the Scottish Government when the Borders railway will be operational. (S4T-00093)

We expect to make an announcement about the Borders railway shortly, once the commercial terms of the contract between the Scottish ministers and Network Rail have been finalised.

The tone of the minister’s answer is very different from the negativity of the Conservatives and in particular Mr Lamont, who is forever going on about the Borders railway. I suppose that he would have a different tune if the line went through his constituency. In any event, that is not our fault—it was the Liberals and the Labour Party who decided the route.

However, I will raise a positive note, as I am a positive person. Would the minister be willing to consider—even if it affected prices and time—cross-party and local campaigners’ views on accommodating charter trains, given their potential additional economic benefit to the Borders? Will he also give me a further update on journey times?

As the member knows, I had a productive meeting with her, Claudia Beamish and representatives from the Campaign for Borders Rail earlier this month to discuss tourist trains at Tweedbank station. I took that proposal seriously, and we have had further discussions with Network Rail.

As I said, we are completing a further assessment. We will have a further meeting with the Campaign for Borders Rail, which I hope will be in November. I expect to make an announcement on our agreement with Network Rail shortly.

As I have said, there is no change to the proposed journey times. The target of a 55-minute journey time remains. In the Network Rail contract, the specified journey time for the new section of railway remains unchanged, at 44 minutes. The fastest end-to-end journey time of 55 minutes also remains unchanged and I intend it to be achieved.

Would charter trains make any difference to the regular running of trains? Would they operate at weekends? Would they have an impact on commuting?

That important point must be discussed further with Network Rail and the eventual operator, ScotRail. Possible synergies between ScotRail and Network Rail to ensure that those services can happen are important but, obviously, it is more important that the standard services are delivered without interruption. As both Christine Grahame and Claudia Beamish have said previously, there are substantial economic benefits to be had from allowing charter trains, so we want to do that, if possible, while making sure that that has no effect on the regular running of trains.

Councillor David Parker, the leader of the Scottish National Party-led Scottish Borders Council, has indicated that he is happy to see the costs rise provided that the railway is built. Does the minister agree with that analysis?

I do not even agree with the terms of the question because, of course, David Parker is not an SNP councillor but an independent councillor.

We will never be happy to see an increase in costs for any project. For example, we are bearing down heavily on the costs of the Forth road crossing, as we have in the case of previous projects, such as the M74 and the Airdrie to Bathgate line. We recognise that rail projects tend to be more challenging than roads projects, so we are not at all complacent about the costs, and we will do all that we can to drive down costs.

To return to Christine Grahame’s original point, which has also been made to me by Claudia Beamish, if there are additions that we can make to the project that will help the economic situation in the Borders, we will look sympathetically at them.

I welcome the minister’s remarks about charter trains on the basis of the cross-party discussions that we have had.

How does Transport Scotland plan to ensure the accessibility of all stations for bus users, pedestrians and cyclists?

Claudia Beamish will know that many of those issues are still under discussion. However, for example, park-and-ride facilities are an integral part of the project. Obviously, accessibility to stations should be built in from the start of a project, rather than being retrofitted, as it sometimes has to be.

In passing, I thank Claudia Beamish for her constructive approach to the Borders rail project.

The role of authorised undertaker is being transferred from Transport Scotland to Network Rail, which is also providing finance to the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme. Is there any connection between Network Rail taking on that role for Borders rail and the £350 million reduction in funding for EGIP between 2014 and 2019?

There is no connection between those two projects whatsoever. The same body is involved, but the decision on Borders rail was taken substantially before the decision on EGIP. The projects will result in a combined investment of about £1 billion in Scotland’s railways, and we are pleased to be working with Network Rail on something that will so advantage the people of Scotland and public transport networks.