Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Official Report 1081KB pdf

---

Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-11111, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill at stage 3.

I call the cabinet secretary first to signify Crown consent to the bill.

I begin with the important matter of Crown consent. For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, in so far as they are affected by the bill, at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill.

We are severely short of time for the debate, and we cannot delay decision time any further. I leave the choice open to the chamber. If all members cut a minute off their speeches, everyone should be able to speak. However, if members insist on using all their time, I will have to cut up to three speakers, which is certainly not ideal.

I call Fergus Ewing to speak to and move the motion. The allotted time was eight minutes, but brevity would be appreciated.

17:52  

Today is an historic occasion. The bill is the first forestry legislation since the Parliament was reconvened in 1999. I am proud to be the cabinet secretary who is responsible for this landmark bill. It completes the process of the devolution of forestry that started with the Scotland Act 1998, nearly 20 years ago.

The Forestry Commission was established in 1919 to expand forests and woodlands after they were depleted during the first world war. It has achieved a great deal, from which it can take pride. However, administrative arrangements need to change with the times. Nearly a century on, the arrangements for forestry should reflect devolution. I am determined that forestry will be at the heart of the work of the Scottish Government.

The powers and duties that are held by the forestry commissioners, in so far as they relate to Scotland, will be transferred to Scottish ministers, and the management and regulation of forestry in Scotland will become fully accountable to the Parliament. The bill modernises the statutory framework for the development, management, regulation and support of forestry in Scotland.

The sector is worth nearly one thousand million pounds a year to the Scottish economy and it supports around 25,000 jobs. For the first time, there will be a statutory requirement to prepare a forestry strategy and a duty to promote sustainable forest management.

Forestry is important to Scotland. It is a vibrant sector and one that we want to expand. It delivers a broad range of environmental outcomes—particularly in relation to climate change mitigation—and it supports and enriches the health and wellbeing of those who live in and visit Scotland. Our ambition is to lead the sustainable growth of forestry. The work of the Parliament today will help to deliver that ambition.

From my engagement with Forestry Commission staff at Sylvan house and in the five conservancies throughout the country, I am aware of their high standards of professionalism and of the commitment of the workforce to the promotion of forestry in Scotland. From my work with Forest Enterprise Scotland, I have seen the great work that it does on its core responsibilities in forestry, but also in other areas such as the environment, renewable energy, tourism, recreation—mountain biking, for example—and community woodland development. Over the next few years, I look forward to continuing and regular engagement with the entire workforce throughout the country.

I express my gratitude for stakeholder engagement—in particular from Confor and Scottish Land & Estates—and acknowledge the Forestry Commission’s trade unions for their very positive and constructive engagement over the piece. I am looking forward to on-going discussions with them, including twice yearly formal meetings.

By including additional provisions on sustainable development, the bill also enables more effective use of Scotland’s publicly owned land, and ministers will be responsible for managing the national forest estate to contribute to multiple outcomes.

The bill has been improved and strengthened as a result of the parliamentary process, and I welcome that. While it was not the approach that I and many stakeholders and senior forestry figures preferred, I accept that Parliament has legislated for ministers to establish two Scottish Government executive agencies to deliver their functions. That arrangement will avoid the disaster of the success that is Forest Enterprise Scotland losing its financial flexibilities, and we shall make every effort to make that approach work, particularly for the staff who will transfer to the Scottish Government next April. Both agencies will be part of the Government and act as agents for Scottish ministers, and I will seek to ensure that both will be at the very heart of the Scottish Government’s work.

Presiding Officer, I have followed your admonition at the beginning of the debate to be short. I conclude by saying that the Forestry Commission—which has existed for 99 years—has left us with a proud legacy of achievement. In completing the devolution of forestry, we now have the opportunity to take forward that great legacy for another century.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill be passed.

17:57  

We have had a good discussion, and I was pleased to see amendments from members across the chamber agreed to at stage 3. The amendments will make the bill much more effective in achieving its aims and will provide assurance to those working in the industry.

Under devolution, the bill is required so that we can wind up the Forestry Commission as a cross-border public authority, transfer relevant property and liabilities to Scottish ministers and transfer staff, creating new organisational structures for forestry and land management in Scotland. It will repeal the Forestry Act 1967, which is why it is so important that we worked together to get it right.

My aim has been to allow the devolution of forestry to be a smooth process—one that is agreed by all the stakeholders, not imposed on them. It needs to lead to the creation of bodies that are fit for purpose and able to meet the ambitious planting targets that have been set—namely, achieving 10,000 hectares of new planting this year, with the target expanding to 15,000 hectares by 2025.

I firmly believe that it is possible to meet those targets, and I hope that they can be achieved. That will help us to meet our climate change targets, as trees are a great way to soak up carbon. It will help to meet our increasing demand for timber and make a dent in our timber imports—after all, we are the second-largest importer of timber in the world. Finally, it will provide jobs in some of our most remote and rural areas. Some say that that will impact on farmers and drive sheep off the hills. However, I firmly believe that there are real opportunities for our farmers to embrace timber growing and become much more like farmers in Scandinavian countries, who are both farmers and foresters, reaping the financial benefits as a result.

We did not want the Scottish Government to take all those functions into central Government, which is why I was glad that Claudia Beamish’s amendment was agreed to today, ensuring that all agencies remain outwith Government and at arm’s length. We have met many concerned stakeholders who believe that that is the best way for the industry to move forward. I am also firmly of the opinion that end-year financial flexibility can be achieved under that model.

How?

Quite simply.

I was pleased that both of the amendments I lodged were agreed to. Amendment 38 relates to tree health, which has been seen as an important matter from the early stages of the bill. We can never have enough research on tree health. Our forests are under increasing threat from new diseases and climate change, and the more knowledge we have, the better we can manage our forests sustainably. That must include the cross-border management of tree health, which has been a major concern of many stakeholders. With the cross-border powers of the forestry commissioners being repealed under the bill, it is vital that cross-border tree health is still managed.

Amendment 41 ensures that, in preparing its forestry strategy, the Government must include planting targets. The bill is about growing our forested land, and planting targets are a necessary part of the strategy. The Scottish Government has missed its target of planting 10,000 hectares every year since 2001. With the bill, the Government aims to increase that target to 15,000 hectares by 2025, and we need that to be monitored and measured.

At stage 1, many were concerned about the issue of compulsory purchase for the purpose of sustainable development. That has been a red line for our group. We have never said that the compulsory purchase powers in the 1967 act should never be rolled over, but we have always agreed that the extension of those powers to include sustainable development was not needed or wanted.

We welcome the bill following today’s amendments. I am glad that considerations from all parties in the chamber have been taken into account and that we have successfully worked to create a bill that works for stakeholders, our forestry industry and Scotland’s environment and landscape. I support the bill.

18:01  

Scottish Labour supports the devolution of forestry powers, and we welcome the efforts in the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill to promote sustainable forestry management and to strengthen and grow the sector. The sector is of huge importance to Scotland: it supports about 25,000 full-time equivalent jobs and represents £954 million of gross value added.

Dumfries and Galloway, which is my home area, is the most densely forested area in the country, with woods and forests covering 31 per cent of the land. It is a major timber-producing area. It harvests 30 per cent of Scotland’s home-grown timber each year, and it is home to Scotland’s largest biomass power station. It is little wonder that the timber industry is responsible for more than 3,000 jobs in the region. They are crucial in such a rural area.

There remains a great deal more to be done to maximise the benefits of forestry in Scotland. The bill and the devolution of forestry powers are opportunities to make significant strides in that regard. There are many positive and potentially transformative provisions in the amended bill, such as on the creation of the forestry strategy, the establishment of the post of chief forester and the new statutory duty that will be placed on public bodies to promote sustainable forests. Given the importance of forestry to our communities, it is imperative that we get right the devolution of forestry powers to Scotland, and that we ensure that the industry is not only protected but bolstered now and in the long term, and that we proceed with the maximum support of all stakeholders.

Setting up the organisational arrangements for the new powers is fundamental to that. Although the original bill did not deal directly with those arrangements, it was somewhat naive to believe that they would not be at the heart of the debate on the bill, particularly given that the Government used devolution of forestry to try to centralise functions within the Government. I am delighted that members took a stand against that in voting on amendments, and I am pleased that Parliament will get an opportunity to scrutinise the proposals for the new organisational arrangements when the Government brings them forward.

Forestry Commission Scotland has had considerable success during its 100 years of existence, and it has taken a long-term approach, which is important to the sector. It is a well-respected and highly effective brand, with an unequivocal focus on forestry and considerable expertise among its staff. There was genuine concern because that would undoubtedly have been put at risk by the Scottish Government’s plans to create a Government division. I am pleased that members have listened, even if the Government chose not to do so.

I hope that there will be a greater effort to take a consensual approach when revised proposals for the new organisational structure are brought forward. Those plans must not only be in line with the legal requirements of the bill; they must reflect its intentions and spirit in full as a result of today’s amendments and the comments that have been made during the debate. There is an opportunity for the Government to achieve genuine consensus, and it should take that opportunity.

Although unfortunately not all the constructive amendments that the parties lodged were successful, Labour is pleased to support the amended bill and the opportunities that devolution will bring to forestry. However, the bill’s success in realising its aims will depend to a significant degree on on-going work. The development of the organisational arrangements for the powers and the contents of the upcoming forestry strategy will be critical to ensuring that the bill’s overarching ambitions, which are shared by members across the chamber, are fully realised.

I hope that the bill will be agreed to and that we can move forward to build on the success of the forestry sector in Scotland and truly deliver its huge potential.

18:04  

Scrutiny of the bill has been very positive. There has also been positive engagement not just with the public, but with the forestry workforce. The Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee took seriously its role in scrutinising the legislation.

Parliamentary scrutiny has raised the profile of forestry, which is important. Members have spoken about the number of employees in an industry that is worth nearly £1 billion, which makes it a significant industry across Scotland. It has great importance in rural communities, many of which I represent.

The cabinet secretary spoke of the historic nature of the legislation, which is certainly the case. Those who look after the national forest estate, which is an immense amount of land, have a significant responsibility.

There have always been transactions related to sale and disposal of forestry land. I was pleased that, at stage 2, the committee agreed that retained moneys that are connected with disposals be reinjected into forestry.

We know that forestry is not just about trees and timber production. Much has been made of its recreational use, and its significant health benefits, including to mental health, are increasingly recognised.

Forests have a large part to play in the overall environment, as we saw from Claudia Beamish’s amendments about the Kyoto agreement, deer management and biodiversity. All those issues are linked.

Forests cover 18 per cent of our country and the predominant species is the Sitka spruce. People will no doubt share my concerns about a disease that is affecting the Sitka spruce, so I was happy to support Peter Chapman’s amendments about the importance of sharing our experience on timber health. Disease, like fish, knows no boundaries. International co-operation is very important.

I am also keen that we expand our native woodland, rather than relying predominantly on Sitka spruce, which covers a third of the total forest area.

It is important that we look to what the future might bring. The debate got off to a positive start when we talked about the bill’s overarching principles. That gave a clear policy direction. Forestry is a dynamic sector. We know that there are challenges connected to production, but we can all subscribe to the promotion of sustainable forest management.

There is a key role for the forest strategy, and Parliament will have a key role in maintaining a watching brief over its direction. I have no doubt that we will be hearing from the cabinet secretary about the strategy at the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee.

How much time do I have left, Presiding Officer?

You have half a minute.

Thank you very much. It is important that we look ahead. We know that a concerted effort will be needed to address the coming blip in production and the challenges that lie ahead. We know that forestry has historically been able to address those challenges, and I am sure that it will continue to do so.

Forestry is an important sector that requires a significant level of scrutiny by Parliament.

18:08  

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I welcome the amended bill. The parliamentary process and the passage of the bill show Parliament working at its best. It was at its best in how it took evidence at stage 1 and how it interrogated the detail of the bill and improved it. I know that the minister might not feel that way, but I assure him that Parliament has been working at its best. The fact that the minister does not get all his own way has to be a good thing.

I welcome the fact that Parliament has, today, asserted its authority over the Government’s wishes. I was particularly pleased to see that the further unnecessary powers of compulsory purchase, which ministers wanted simply because they wanted them, were denied them. They never gave an explanation about why they wanted them. However, there is no doubt that amendment 39, in the name of Claudia Beamish, was the most important amendment of the day.

Labour members talked about lifting and shifting, which is a good way to describe what the Scottish Parliament has done. We have lifted and shifted the UK’s Forestry Commission and Forest Enterprise, so that they will become the Scottish Forestry Commission and Scottish Forest Enterprise. We have prevented the absorption of staff into the civil service and, in my view, safeguarded the experience and expertise of the foresters. That is what I take from the evidence that the committee heard.

I am particularly pleased that the position of chief forester was safeguarded by the committee at stage 2. The approach was opposed by the minister, so I am pleased that he now supports it and that he did not move amendment 23, which would have removed the section that provides for the chief forester’s post.

Time is short; I think that two minutes is long enough for me to make the point that the minister’s task and what we must concentrate on is to begin work to ensure that a successful and efficient forestry industry grows in Scotland.

18:10  

As deputy convener of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, I begin, as I normally do in such debates, by thanking my fellow committee members, everyone who gave evidence—in writing and in person—and the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre who provided reports and briefings. I also thank all the members of the forestry team. They are the staff who worked so hard to get us to this point of general agreement. I know that many long hours have been put into the bill.

With the passing of the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill, we are completing the devolution of forestry, as laid out in the Government’s programme for Scotland. In our 2016 manifesto, the SNP made a commitment to devolve forestry and take it into Government—whether through an agency or a division—and to establish a new land agency for Scotland that is based on Forest Enterprise, to manage publicly owned land in the best interests of the public. I sincerely hope that that is what we have done.

The REC Committee spent a lot of time taking evidence on the bill and analysing what we heard. The fact that the single-agency model was not debated until stage 3 meant that we were given little time for in-depth and valuable scrutiny of the option. The two-agency model is uncosted, untested and unexplored, but it is clearly a better option than loss of public corporation status, which would have had disastrous consequences.

Staff are now uncertain about how long the process will take and how the two-agency model will work. However, as members said, I am sure that we will make it work and that we will support staff. I will be interested to hear suggestions from Opposition parties about how the approach will work.

The committee supported the general principles of the bill, but made a number of recommendations in our stage 1 report, the first of which was that the Scottish Government provide

“a comprehensive statement ... setting out how it will manage and administer its forestry responsibilities.”

The cabinet secretary did that. The document set out the new governance arrangements, how the organisation would be structured and how funding would be provided—it will still come from the Scottish Government. It contained a promise to retain local offices and a clear commitment to there being no compulsory redundancies, and it talked about the creation of a corporate plan and the post of chief forester.

The document was positively received. Confor, BSW Timber, Scottish Land & Estates and the UK Forest Products Association were all positive and have said that they are sufficiently reassured that the industry’s concerns have been addressed. Having said that, I am now unclear about how the proposed governance arrangements will apply in the new structure; maybe the minister will address that.

There was interest in an amendment that I lodged at stage 2 on a duty to promote sustainable forest management, so I mention that I met the cabinet secretary to discuss the amendment. The definition of “sustainable forest management” is continually developing, and following the discussion I am satisfied that the place for such a definition is in the forestry strategy. The definition will, therefore, be in the strategy.

I hope that we can all work together now to take work forward positively.

18:14  

Today’s proceedings have been another mammoth session. Late-night meetings seem to be becoming a habit—I hope not. What we have seen is the result of a lot of co-operation among members, especially in the REC Committee. I thank my colleagues on the committee. We disagreed on a number of matters during the stages of the bill, but I would like to think that, at the end of the process, we have a bill that has the Parliament’s consent by consensus.

I am pleased that we can ensure that the devolution of forestry in Scotland happens and carries over many of the powers in the Forestry Act 1967 but in a way that is fit for purpose and that reflects the needs of forestry today.

I will not labour any of the previous arguments, so I have cut them out of my speech. However, on the issue of compulsory purchase, I am pleased that the cabinet secretary still has the powers that he held previously and no more than those. We had a good debate on the issue of the chief forester, which is an important point. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary conceded on that matter.

We have covered a wide range of subjects over the past few months in relation to forestry in Scotland, which is an important topic for many of us. It is a major source of not just income but livelihoods in communities across rural Scotland. We have covered everything from compulsory purchase to more subjective issues such as what sustainable development is, which Gail Ross mentioned; what community-controlled bodies are; what cross-border tree health is and how it should look and feel; and what felling is and the circumstances around that. The world has changed since the 1967 act was passed.

Throughout the process, members have sought to improve transparency and scrutiny and to mitigate any potential negative consequences of the proposed structural changes. It was a policy decision to make those changes. I am always of the belief that, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Nonetheless, decisions have been made. Forestry Commission Scotland is an important, well-known and respected brand, and I hope that that good will remains as we move forward.

We should thank the staff who are involved in the industry, which provides tremendous career opportunities, as well as those who manage Scottish land on our behalf.

In what is perhaps my shortest speech ever, I will sum up by saying that we should all seek to grow the forestry industry. We have targets to achieve, but I hope that we will grow the industry in the most inclusive way possible. I thank members for all their hard work on the bill.

18:16  

I, too, welcome the bill as amended by the Parliament today. The key is to ensure that land management works best for the people of Scotland. As such, it is vital that the Parliament listens to the views of key stakeholders and takes on board the recommendations that their expertise offers.

It has recently been estimated that the forestry sector supports around 26,000 jobs, with £954 million of gross value added. Aside from the clear economic impacts, forestry also impacts on climate change, biodiversity, flood management and health and wellbeing. Bearing all that in mind, it is clear that any changes to forestry management must be well considered and thought through to ensure that they deliver positive outcomes in all regards. In delivering the social, economic and environmental benefits of forestry that the bill intends to achieve, those benefits must be for all and not simply for the few.

In that regard, there were serious concerns over the Scottish National Party’s centralising agenda. Indeed, the Woodland Trust stated:

“We worry that the loss of a dedicated stand-alone public body for forestry in Scotland will result in the loss of forestry focus in Scottish policy making, along with a loss of professional expertise from the trained foresters who currently staff Forestry Commission Scotland.”

That is why Scottish Labour believed that it was essential for there to be two agencies, which I am pleased has been agreed today. I hope that the Government has listened and paid attention to the views that have been expressed, not just today but throughout the process. It is also why the position of chief forester should be on a statutory footing, so I am pleased that the cabinet secretary did not push his amendment in that regard.

Forestry has many beneficial impacts, but key to those is the expansion of our native woodlands. Scotland has lost much of its native woodland and is now one of the least forested countries in Europe. By increasing the biodiversity of forests, we will give future generations a rich environment that benefits all. Although the economic benefits of forestry are important, we cannot ignore the environmental impacts of mismanagement.

It is essential that we utilise and retain expertise and do not create another centralised civil service directorate that simply maintains our natural land and environment rather than helping it to flourish. That is why it is good to be able to support the bill as amended.

18:20  

I agree with Peter Chapman’s highlighting of the opportunities that exist for forestry and agriculture—perhaps I should say arboriculture and agriculture—to work together. Arboriculture includes vines, and I look forward to there being vines in Scotland in the future. There is an underexploited opportunity there.

Alex Rowley highlighted the issue of climate change, and I absolutely agree with him on the importance of forestry to managing and mitigating the effects of climate change.

I have a small point to make about unused powers. We have had discussion about compulsory purchase powers that have never been used. However, the fact that they have not been used is not to say that they have no effect. The very existence of powers forces people over whom they might be exercised to come to conclusions.

I will give an example of an unused power that touches on the life of us here. Forging the great seal of Scotland is high treason. It has been in the Scots law canon for more than 500 years and, as far as I can establish, it has never been used. Nevertheless, it is of such value that it is part of our legal system. That demonstrates that unused powers are not powers without value.

As I mentioned in the stage 1 debate, when the Great Michael was built in 1513, it weighed 1,000 tons and was the biggest warship in the world. All the forests of Fife were cleared to build it, and wood had to be imported from elsewhere. A couple of years later, the English decided that they wanted a bigger vessel, so they built an even bigger ship and the Great Michael—impressive achievement though it was—was never used for any particularly useful purpose.

In the time that remains to me, I would like to draw on personal experience. My wife reported to me that, earlier this month, two men came to the door. We live on 4 acres of land, and we are surrounded on three sides by about 70 to 80 acres of forest. One of the men was the new owner of the forestry and the other was from the Forestry Commission, and they had come to make my wife aware that some of that forestry was to be harvested over the next few years and to discuss the plans. My wife felt that it was an excellent intervention to be talked through what was going to happen and to be given sufficient notice—three years’ notice, in fact—to allow us to put up some protective trees that might start to grow in that period that would continue to give the shelter that the forest provides.

The Forestry Commission is one of our crowning glories, and I hope that the bill as enacted will support its future development and success.

18:23  

As someone who has grown up, lived and worked in, and who now represents, the constituency of Galloway and West Dumfries, I have always been acutely aware of the importance of the forestry industry—the importance of which I note that other members are aware of—to my region, which has the biggest forest park in the United Kingdom.

I supported the amendments of my Scottish Conservative colleagues and others across the chamber that were designed to safeguard the forestry industry in the future. Like my Scottish Conservative colleagues, I had grave concerns about the plans to take power away from the Forestry Commission and to hand power over its functions to a division within the Scottish Government. We have repeatedly said that taking power away from the commission—which has helped to create and support thousands of jobs in our urban and rural communities, and which is rooted in the communities that it serves, supports and sustains—is not the way to support our forestry industry.

We have listened to the concerns of Scottish Land & Estates, which stated:

“we have a major concern with the government’s current proposals. That is, we do not believe they will best enable the retention of forestry expertise within the public sector.”

That verdict could not be any clearer, which is why I was pleased to support Claudia Beamish’s amendment 39, which will pave the way for having one or two agencies. That will mean that Scotland’s forestry will be managed at arm’s length from the Scottish Government by an agency that can function away from Government control. That agency will deliver far greater accountability for stakeholders through a board with non-executive directors.

I know that my constituents in Galloway and West Dumfries would not have wanted yet more functions going to the Scottish Government, so I was pleased to reject further centralisation through the various amendments today.

I was also at a loss as to why Fergus Ewing went against a committee recommendation to create the position of chief forester. He was not only going against the advice of a committee of this Parliament but was not listening to the advice of the experts. Scottish Land & Estates said:

“To ensure retention of professional staff in the long term, the bill should create a post of chief forester for Scotland. Ministers should commit to designating key professional posts.”

We need only look at the fact that the average length of time spent working in Forestry Commission Scotland is around 25 years, whereas in the Scottish Government it is merely two years.

I am pleased to have supported the amendments, which were designed to strengthen the bill rather than to weaken the legislation and, ultimately, the industry itself. I support the bill.

The last speaker in the open debate is Richard Lyle.

18:25  

I want to begin this afternoon by reflecting. I know that many members across the chamber believe that I am always for development, but I am also a believer in conservation, particularly when it comes to the aims of this bill. We are privileged in Scotland to have beautiful areas that are enriched with forests and trees. Aberdeenshire, for example, which I have visited a lot recently, is filled with incredible scenes; there are many, too, even in the central belt, and I must mention again, as always, Strathclyde country park.

The bill seeks to protect and develop those special places, as we plant for the future. I hope that my new grandson Nathan, who we have just welcomed into the world and who is very much enjoying his baby box—another great idea by the Government—will be able to grow up in a country that protects and celebrates its incredible landscape, thanks to the legislation that we are passing today. Indeed, the new framework and administrative arrangements that have been put in place will, we hope, support forestry in Scotland for years ahead, as I have outlined, and give forestry its rightful place in supporting Scotland’s economy.

I wish to reflect on the contributions by stakeholders. In particular, I wish to mention Confor, which—through its chief executive, Stuart Goodall—has made a truly valuable contribution on the bill and which has worked constructively to share its opinions and knowledge.

Various amendments that have been agreed to this afternoon will have to stand the test of time, like Andy Wightman’s pie chart. I am sure that the Government will enjoy making pies.

Will the member take an intervention?

I do not have time. I am sorry.

I thank the cabinet secretary for his work and the approach that he has taken on the bill. He has continually made himself and officials available to the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee in its considerations and has sought to work collaboratively with those who have an interest in doing so. He has my high respect.

Of course, the cabinet secretary has been supported by various Scottish Government officials, such as Kate Higgins, who has been a great help to the committee in understanding some of the workings of the bill. I thank her, too, for her work. At the committee, Government officials—I think that they are sitting behind me in the chamber—have been on hand to talk through the bill and they have been able to address members’ questions. I thank all those involved for their approach.

The Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill is key to our ambition to lead the sustainable growth of forestry and to increase its already substantial economic, social and environmental contribution to Scotland. Completing the devolution of forestry functions will help to support that ambition. I hope that, for years to come, the effects of this legislation will be recognised for their contribution to keeping Scotland the beautiful country that we all know.

Everyone has been very good today and we are back on time. We move to the closing speeches.

18:29  

Tomorrow is international forests day—a day to celebrate the importance of forests and the ways in which they sustain and protect us around the world. We can also look forward to the Forestry Commission’s centenary celebrations next year, so this is truly a time to focus our minds on the best way forward for Scotland’s forests.

Throughout the bill process, I have heard from a number of impassioned voices, as have many of us in the chamber. My thanks go to all those with whom I have engaged, along with my colleague Colin Smyth; that includes the numerous South Scotland constituents who emailed me.

Forestry’s future is that of a growing sector. It is already a thriving £1 billion industry, which has the opportunity for yet more significant growth. However, it also faces new challenges to keep up with planting targets, maintain a good supply of commercial timber and improve rates of natural regeneration of native and ancient woodlands. Therefore, I am relieved that the Scottish Government accepted my amendments on deer management, climate change and biodiversity, which are very important in relation to those challenges.

Forestry has an important impact on rural economies, employment, green urban spaces, and—as John Finnie mentioned—mental wellbeing, construction and low-carbon materials, community initiatives, tourism, and much more. The Parliament has made the right choices for the future of forestry, with the right governance structures. Consistently from consultation, at stage 2, and since then, the Government has been made aware of significant unease regarding its vision for forestry. There have been 100 years of success under the current arrangements—let us secure the sector’s strong footing and nurture its ability to grow by preserving the skills, the on-the-ground knowledge and the irreplaceable expertise of the FCS and FES staff. I thank them all today.

Forestry needs long-term vision. It could not operate successfully, as it currently does, if it fell victim to the changeable whim of a future minister, the restructuring of a Government department, or a new Government and manifesto. I do not need to remind members that it has been less than 10 years since the Scottish National Party Government attempted to lease publicly owned forests to private companies.

Amendments by me and by Colin Smyth sought to require Scottish ministers to carry out their forestry functions through an agency or agencies to retain forestry’s proven and effective brand and to allow for the retention of Forest Enterprise Scotland’s public corporation status, as the cabinet secretary has highlighted. I also added the requirement for greater scrutiny through a report to Parliament; that adds a further layer of comfort in ensuring that we get the process right, and I am grateful for the Parliament’s support for amendment 2.

The climate service that our forests provide is one that we should not take for granted. The climate change plan woodland expansion targets are welcome, as they increase the sequestration capacity.

Community woodland projects and local rural development goals must shine in the future. Bit by bit, planting and subdividing land into smaller plots can empower communities and can often offer a greater focus on nurturing biodiversity and climate mitigation.

I was a strong advocate of agroforestry in the previous parliamentary session and I hope to continue to be a strong advocate, as highlighted by Peter Chapman. Scotland has a bright future in sustainable forestry and the Parliament has helped to secure that today. I am eager to support the bill as amended.

18:33  

The Scottish Conservatives are delighted to add our support to the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill. We believe that the bill, as amended, will work in the best interests of our environment, our conservation efforts, our timber trade, and our natural forest estate.

We are pleased that the bill completes the full devolution of forestry to Scotland. More powers mean more responsibility on the part of the Scottish Government to improve its frankly poor record on achieving planting targets. Under the stewardship of Richard Lochhead and now Fergus Ewing, the target of planting 10,000 hectares a year has not been reached. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but this issue needs to be resolved. Targets are targets and achieving targets is important. We therefore welcome the cabinet secretary’s intention to raise the planting target to 12,000 hectares per year from 2020. It is an ambitious target, and we will work with him to ensure that he achieves it.

We will also monitor carefully the rebranding of the Forestry Commission to Forestry Scotland. There is always a temptation to spend a lot of money to make changes overnight. As the cabinet secretary accepted, such things can often be done at half the price if branding on equipment and vehicles is changed as they are replaced, on a rotational basis. I remind the cabinet secretary of his commitment to do that.

During an evidence session, we heard of the need for a new computer system, too; I think that we are all praying for a system that works and which will deliver for Scotland’s forestry. I believe that the Scottish Government now has all the tools that it needs to reach its planting targets and to do what it needs to do with forestry.

I am mindful of the time, Presiding Officer, and of the fact that you want me to keep my comments brief, so I will do so.

Today, I believe that we have seen the Parliament working as it should do by working across the chamber to achieve outcomes that all parties consider important. Not everyone got everything that they wanted, but we have delivered a new forestry structure for Scotland. I am delighted that the cabinet secretary has undertaken to make it work and to make the will of the Parliament work.

As other members have done, I thank all those who helped the Parliament in its discussions and scrutiny of the bill, from the committee clerks to the members of the Confederation of Forest Industries, other agencies and the trade unions who came and spoke to the committee. Being informed about matters that sometimes we do not know as much about as they do is, frankly, very helpful. In particular, I thank all the members of the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee for their diligence during the scrutiny of the bill. I remind those members of the committee who are in the chamber that we will start our stage 2 consideration of the Islands (Scotland) Bill tomorrow morning promptly on time.

This has been a good debate, with positive outcomes for forestry in Scotland. The Government has listened to the combined views of the Opposition parties, and that has resulted in a sensible and worthwhile outcome. I believe that that will take forestry in Scotland forward, which must be the aim of all parties in the chamber.

I call Fergus Ewing. Please take us up to just before decision time at 6.45, cabinet secretary.

18:36  

I will see what I can do, Presiding Officer.

I thank members for their speeches in the debate. I have found the whole parliamentary process stimulating and even hyperstimulating at times, and improvements have been made to the bill in the bygoing. The main improvements were made because the Government accepted the vast majority of the recommendations that were made at stage 1 by the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee, which was the lead committee on the bill. Those recommendations were taken forward—we listened to Parliament and acted upon them.

The responsibility to make the bill work now rests primarily with me, as the cabinet secretary. I know that we will succeed in that task, because I have built excellent working relationships with Jo O’Hara and Simon Hodge and their professional teams over the past two years. It is because of their commitment, dedication and professionalism that I know that we will make the new arrangements work, and I am quite sure that the Parliament will hold me to that.

It was a highlander, Simon Fraser—who, I think, was the 14th Lord Lovat and a redoubtable figure—who was the founding father of the Forestry Commission in 1919, following the Acland report, which was published some years prior to that, when Britain was denuded of trees. The action that was taken then was quite radical, and the forest estate was built up with successive injections of drive, enthusiasm and finance from the likes of Philip Snowden, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the first Labour Government, and Winston Churchill, in the Baldwin Government, so that, by the beginning of the second world war, the Forestry Commission was the largest landowner in Britain. That was an amazing achievement, and it was followed after the second world war by a further wave of plantations, in which Scotland led the way. Indeed, my late uncle, David Woodburn, played a great part in that process.

Over the 99 years since the establishment of the Forestry Commission, the national forest estate has grown and its aims have been extended to include, as well as the core purpose of forestry, conservation, tourism, renewable energy and a host of other functions. The commission has risen to the task of meeting those additional tasks and functions as they have been accumulated. I am acutely conscious of the legacy that the Forestry Commission has bequeathed to us. Having had the opportunity and pleasure to work with not just the management but many of the staff around the country, I know that it is essential that we continue the ethos and spirit of the commission.

For a great many, if not most, of the staff who work for the commission and for Forest Enterprise, it is not just a job; it is a calling, vocation and profession to which they are personally devoted. We need to do our best to preserve that devotion, and we must be aware of the need to preserve and protect for the next 100 years the traditions that continue in practice.

Because of that, I set out, in the statement that I published at the Parliament’s behest, that we will create the post of chief forester, who will be the head of professional development. That individual will become the head of the agency that was formerly the Forestry Commission. The measure was welcomed by all the stakeholders—even those who were not satisfied with the proposals that we made—as was the commitment to maintain the conservancies, Silvan house, the offices of Forest Enterprise and the ethos to which I have referred.

I hope that the next few years will see us reach the target of 10,000 hectares of new plantings and move on to the even more ambitious target of 15,000 hectares by 2025. Indeed, a study by WWF concluded that, unless planting rates are increased, by 2050—which I note, for the younger members, is not that far away—the United Kingdom will be required to import 80 per cent of its timber. That is a shocking scenario for a country that is so suited to plantations. The UK is now the second-largest importer of forest products, as I think Mr Chapman said.

To avert that happening, we must increase our timber production and meet our climate change targets by growing more forests in Scotland. That work must be informed by the best silvicultural practice—namely, planting the right tree in the right place. As, I think, members of all parties have acknowledged, that must also be integrated into overall land management in Scotland so that farming and forestry complement each other.

I emphasise what is of fundamental importance in enabling those considerable challenges to be met. Perhaps the most important point of all is that our key asset is our staff: the workforce of the Forestry Commission and Forest Enterprise Scotland. Therefore, it is vital that we continue to invest in our staff. When I say that, I mean that we should value them, ensure that the process of negotiating terms and conditions is conducted and completed as swiftly as possible and contribute to their further professional development, as I have seen happen for myself in visiting all the conservancies in Scotland. I value the good relationships that have been forged with the trade union representatives, and I pledge that that engagement will continue with biannual meetings.

There is much more to be done over the next year as we prepare for 1 April 2019, when we intend to bring the new arrangements into force. That includes the completion of the collaborative arrangements for cross-border functions, working with the UK and Welsh Governments. Secondary legislation is also required to implement aspects of the bill.

We are committed to maintaining continuity of delivery as we make the transition to the new arrangements. We must continue our shared national endeavour to expand Scotland’s woodland area to secure future timber supply. We have the most ambitious planting targets in the UK, which will help us to achieve our climate change objectives. However, we also cherish our forests and woodlands for the benefits that they can bring to people—benefits of myriad variety across the range. The bill also enables more effective use of Scotland’s publicly owned land.

I express my gratitude to my officials, who have provided exemplary support under considerable pressure, especially over the past three weeks.

Scotland’s woods and forests are of enormous importance to our people, communities, economy and environment. The bill makes forestry directly accountable to the Parliament, which puts it at the heart of our endeavours and at the heart of the rural economy. I am pleased to have introduced the first bill on forestry to the Parliament. We have seized a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a new, modern statutory framework that will support the realisation of our shared national ambition for one of Scotland’s most important assets. I hope that, when we vote, we will support that ambition unanimously.

I am proud to have moved the motion.