I will certainly let you answer that question, Gordon, and I am absolutely sure that, as a union representative, you are robust enough to comment on why you think that view is wrong. Perhaps we can have a quick answer, though, as I am not sure that the committee will be going too deeply into that particular question.

Monica, did you want to come in here? I have a couple of questions that I want to ask, too.

I promise not to mention, at this stage, the failure to achieve planting targets. When the member was cabinet secretary, he tried to streamline the planning process. Is he going to bring up that issue, because it is one of the biggest bottlenecks that we face in the countryside?

I refer members to my entry in the register of interests.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

I am delighted to close this debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives because achieving our net zero targets is one of the biggest challenges that this country faces. If we get it right, we tackle the climate change emergency; if we get it wrong, future generations will have to pay for a long time.

Forestry will play a key role in delivering those ambitions, and that begs the question: is the Government doing enough in Scotland? I am afraid that the facts speak for themselves, and Mr Ewing will not be surprised to hear me say that, since 2016, the Scottish Government has only twice met its annual forestry planting targets. The new targets of 12,000 hectares in 2020 and 13,500 hectares in 2021 have also failed to be met. Over the past five years, this Government has overseen tree planting on 10,000 hectares fewer than it should have done. That is a huge amount of catching up to do, and we should seriously question whether the Government will be able to make up for lost time.

As we have heard, perhaps the off-market, secret purchase of the 16,500-acre Glenprosen estate in Angus—at a reported cost of £25 million—will help. Perhaps when the Government fails to meet its annual targets, it will just need to grab a few acres from that land bank, to make up for areas where the targets are being missed, and it will then meet its headline targets.

When done by private individuals, off-market deals have always been criticised by the Government, but it appears to be fine for the Government to do such a deal. Most people would view that as double standards, which perhaps epitomises this Government’s dealings with forestry.

Biodiversity and food security are great straplines, but actions need to speak louder than words. If we are trying to achieve net zero, it does not make sense to fail planting targets and take good, food-producing land out of production. Planting trees so that we have to import more food means that we are offshoring our carbon footprint. When the minister goes to Egypt, she will see food, not trees, being grown on the fertile plains of the Nile, which makes eminent sense. We need to be smarter by planting trees where they do not interrupt food production and it is sensible to provide funds to encourage the achievement of planting targets.

What is more, if we plant the right tree in the right place, we do not create monocultures, which is an absolutely vital point. In that way, we will increase our biodiversity and protect species such as capercaillie and goshawks. Capercaillie are on the verge of extinction, and most of that comes down to the fact that the wrong trees have been planted in the wrong places. In addition, we should never forget that it was Forestry Commission policy to shoot capercaillies on sight and destroy their nests.

I turn to some of the points that were made in the debate. I agree with the minister that there is a strategic need for forestry. It is therefore sad that, by 2035, we will have such a dip that we will not have enough trees in Scotland for our timber industry to use.

I agree with what Brian Whittle said about planting the right trees in the right place; we have heard that a lot this afternoon. We also need to make sure that we grow our seedlings in this country, in order to prevent the import of disease.

I also think that Colin Smyth was right to promote timber production, which is really important. His question about green lairds was also important, and this Government and Parliament need to look at that, to work out whether we are getting it right.

I liked Willie Rennie’s comment about Tarzan. I am not sure whether he will take me to meet Tarzan. If he offers to do so, perhaps I should take that up. He was right in what he said about the fact that we cannot eat trees, so we also need to grow food.

Jenni Minto said that there was a need to promote the rainforest. I believe that she was entirely right and that we should encourage its promotion.

Rachael Hamilton stressed the importance of timber production being complementary to food production. She also rightly stressed the importance of deer control. Getting deer under control is absolutely right, but we need to make sure that deer control is not deer eradication. I am often sad to see the cull targets in forests around me, because the average age of the roe deer that are culled is under a year old. That is no life. That is not management; it is extermination.

I do not always say that he is right, but this afternoon, Fergus Ewing was right to talk about speeding up the process of planting and making it easier for planting to be undertaken. We all know and have heard about how difficult it can be.

Fiona Hyslop pointed out the importance of biodiversity, on which I agree with her. Funnily enough, I agree with what Mark Ruskell said about overgrazing, but he fundamentally failed to mention the problems of overgrazing on riparian woodlands where beavers are to be introduced or the fact that there are very few means of controlling them.

On Jim Fairlie’s comment, there is no punishment from me for anything that he said about needing a circular economy in which timber will play a part. Liam Kerr’s comment about failing to achieve planting targets was very true, as was his comment about doing secret land deals: in one breath, the Government is doing that, but in the next breath it criticises it.

Scotland’s forestry sector has a key role to play in combating climate change, but the Government’s forestry strategy needs to be far cleverer and involve more than just growing monoculture trees, which results in good farmland being lost to those trees.

We need to protect biodiversity, and we need to protect our food security. Those two factors are just as important as trees—the Government must see that, because if it does not, it is not seeing the wood for the trees that it so desperately wants to plant at the expense of everything else.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. Having attended the chamber for yesterday’s statement, I think that I know the answer to this question.

To ask the Scottish Government whether its proposed new agriculture bill will be introduced before 2024. (S6O-01515)

That was predictable. Let us see whether we can get a yes or no answer to this question.

Yesterday, the cabinet secretary failed miserably to answer my question on whether farmers will be any more aware of the conditionality of future farm support. Forever the optimist, I will try again. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that all farmers will have access to all the agri support schemes that replace the single farm payment and that they will not be excluded by their location or land type? A yes or no answer would suit me.

Will the minister give way on that point?

Will the member give way on that point?

I am going to push this a bit, if I may. On the route that we were on yesterday, the people involved seem to be going for a bigger ship of 102m, which compares with the nearly 30 years old MV Caledonian Isles at 94m, and MV Hebridean Isles, which is 84m. They seem to be going for a bigger boat with increased passenger capacity, but at our previous meeting Western Ferries Ltd told us that it favours smaller boats that it could ensure were full and which it could flex up and down as required in order to meet demand. Peter, would you support having more flexibility in order to deliver the reliability and resilience that islanders rightly demand from their ferry services??

Martin, well done. No one noticed you being kicked under the table to correct your earlier answer with more information.

Liam Kerr wants to come in with a question on the back of that.