 Rwyf i'n gweithio i'r next item of business today is a member's business debate on motion number 13158, in the name of Rob Gibson, on peat extraction for horticulture. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I would invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I would further invite those members who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly and indeed members of the public to leave quickly and quietly as well. I now call on Rob Gibson. Seven minutes, Mr Gibson, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Peat lands are a vital part of Scotland's natural capital and provide some of our best open landscapes. They are important for biodiversity, carbon and water, our cultural identity and its historical archives. Globally and nationally, there are major commitments to the conservation and restoration of peat lands. As the species champion for the rusty bog moss, which is one of the emblems of the health of peat bogs, I have a particular interest in my constituency in that. One of the threats to peat lands is from the commercial mining of peat for garden retail and professional horticultural industries. I would like to quote from a book that was published in 1905 called Peat and its Products, indeed the chapter on peat as a manure, which says that a well-known horticulturalist, Mr James Kennedy of the nursery Greenbury Dumfries, writing to the Scottish peat industries in 1904, said, considering the fact that it was in July 17 that the plants were potted, the photograph taken on October 19 proves the success of the experiment, also that a good crop of tomatoes can be grown on peat in little over three months. I am so satisfied with the results already obtained that I intend to test peat as a good material for growing other plants as well as tomatoes and have every confidence of recommending it to other growers. That was over a century ago. It is the practice that has expanded over many decades. Indeed, at the same time, advances in the development of alternatives, including recycled materials, means that Scotland could develop a long-term viable industry, providing sustainable soil conditioners and growing materials for amateur and professional gardeners. Clear Scottish targets for ending commercial peat extraction are needed, along with fiscal measures and incentives to support a vibrant market in sustainable horticultural products. The global importance of peatlands, particularly for biodiversity and climate change, has been well established through the IUCN commission of inquiry on peatlands, and Scotland is at the forefront of international policy to protect and restore peatlands, and has a draft national peatland plan. Lowland peatlands in Scotland are estimated to store 64 million tonnes of carbon in the peat over 18 years' worth of Scotland's transport emissions. Commercial extraction involves the stripping of peat-forming vegetation, drainage and extraction, which results in the stored carbon being released to the atmosphere. In the UK, consumption of peat leads to annual carbon dioxide emissions of over 630,000 tonnes at a cost to society of £32.5 million arising from climate change impacts. Commercial extraction or mining of peat for use as a growing media or soil conditioner has developed over the past 100 years, replacing traditional loam and leaf mould-based composts. The industry mainly removes peat from lowland raised bogs because of its deep peat layer, developed over millennia and its relative accessibility for heavy machinery. I have some of those in my constituency and many other members will too. There are no up-to-date records kept by the Scottish Government on peat extraction planning permissions. Earlier data showed that, in 2003, there were 72 commercial extraction sites in Scotland with 20 still active, 16 expired and 33 awaiting confirmation. Current Scottish planning policy only permits commercial extraction in areas that suffer historic significant damage through human activity and where the conservation value is low and restoration is impossible. Despite the fact that most damaged peat lands are capable of being restored, developers have continued to seek new permissions or extensions to existing permissions and there have been a number of recent applications that are currently being considered by local planning authorities. Concerns about the impact of peat extraction on important wildlife habitats and climate implications of removing ancient natural carbon stores has led to calls for a halt to peat extraction supported by leading authorities such as the Royal Horticultural Society. There are now many alternatives to peat composts, including some high-profile brand names, which are already widely available in garden centres across the UK. Today, many peat-free composts work as effectively as peat ones and much of the material used for peat replacement also contributes to recycling such as commercial green compost or uses by-products such as wood brash and other forestry waste. Advances are also being made in more technical applications such as the commercial growing of plants with B&Q announcing a peat-free bedding plant range. In 2010, DEFRA set out proposals now adopted by the UK Government for retail supplies in England to be peat-free by 2020 and for commercial horticulture to end peat use by 2030, although advances in commercial peat production products should mean that this target could be brought forward. Unfortunately, the UK Government figures for 2012 show that 57 per cent of compost sold in the UK is still peat-based and that there has been little reduction in peat use. I would like to ask the minister to consider establishing legal binding targets for the end to peat in retail sales of growing media, soil conditioners and commercial horticulture. The need to introduce carbon accounting for the use of peat-based products and immediately end to the procurement of peat by government and public bodies, an introduction of fiscal measures to support the development of sustainable peat-free products. For Scottish ministers to be informed of all developments planning proposals for commercial peat extraction and for a biannual Scottish Government report on progress towards the targets. If we are able to take this forward, we will be able to have peat-free growing conditions that are good for plants and good for our climate and good for our natural environment. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and extend my warm thanks to Rob Gibson for bringing the protection of Scottish peatlands to the chamber's attention today, not for the first time and I'm sure not for the last. In relation specifically today, as we've heard in his comprehensive covering of the issues in relation to horticulture, peatland preservation is tied in with numerous environmental issues and is extremely important. Its inclusion in the Scottish Government's second report on proposals and policies was a significant step in the right direction, promising significantly more protection and conservation by 2027. Spagnum moss, often the main component of a peatland bog on the surface, is one of nature's heroes, in my view. It is the living surface with a spongy quality, enabling it to soak up and to filter eight times its own weight in water, preserving the materials below. This means that it is a natural barrier against flooding and provides the water quality and improves the water quality of any area. The biodiversity of peatlands must also be celebrated. The Brayhead moss near where I stay is a raised peat bog in South Scotland and is a fantastic example of complex ecosystems with interesting species such as the round-leaved sundew, a carnivorous plant. A number of birds with RSPB red status can be spotted here, including the dunlin and the yellow hammer. Members may have seen the black egg sculpture in the Parliament garden, which symbolises the pink-footed goose, another resident of the Brayhead moss in winter. Peatlands provide a quiet and precious habitat for some of Scotland's most interesting and often endangered species, such as the moss that our convener of the Rural Affairs Committee, Rob Gibson, champions himself. One of the most damning arguments against the commercial extraction of peat lies in the enormous stores of carbon held in those bogs. Peatlands account for 3 per cent of the world's surface, but hold 30 per cent of all soil carbon. When damaged or drained, those substantial carbon stores are liable to oxidise and realise greenhouse gases release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In part due to the overuse of peat and horticulture, it is estimated that two gigatons of carbon dioxide are released across the world each year—an enormous and dangerous volume disproportionate. The RPP2 commitment to peatland restoration is encouraging. Peatlands are a living system and should be treated with respect. UK amateur gardeners account for 66 per cent of extracted peat, and so this is an issue that each of us as individuals can have a real impact on. The Royal Horticultural Society offers excellent advice on a variety of reasonably priced and effective alternatives available to purchase and which would help sustainable agriculture. Between 2007 and 2009, peat use fell by only 1.63 per cent in the UK, and a change of attitude is required. As an eco-schools co-ordinator, I took pupils out on to the Brayhead Moss to explore and to learn. They created a joyous tapestry telling the story of the Moss that hangs in the school entrance now, and educating children and communities is vital for a step change in both professional and amateur gardening practices to ensure that these fascinating landscapes are not forgotten. The word bog does not conjure up the most inspiring of images, but peat bogs are unique and precious—a product of history—developing only millimetres each year. That combined with their acidic conditions offers unrivald preservative qualities, and has led to the discovery of bog bodies. People preserved perfectly, such as the 250 million-year-old Gunnister man found in Shetland. More recently, sphagnum moss was sent south from Scotland to be used for antiseptic wound dressings in the First and Second World Wars. With alternatives plentiful, the use of peat in horticulture seems to me entirely nonsensical, and I encourage the Scottish Government as a signal to the public to stop the procurement of peat, as our convener of the rural affairs committee has highlighted. I ask the Scottish Government to consider the recommendations that are also highlighted by Rob Gibson today and supported by SWT and RSPB. Surely the time has come to set targets for an end-to-peat extraction for retail and commercial horticulture. I now call on Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Jamie McGregor. Let me start by congratulating the champion of the rusty bog moss on securing this debate, and I add my thanks to my intern, Shane O'Brien, who has done some research for me and provided me with today's speaking notes. I did not just conform to stereotypes because it is from Ireland and I thought that it would be a natural fit. As others have said, peat is a commodity that we need to protect. Particularly in Scotland, where we have vast rural areas that are covered by it, we have about 10 per cent of the world's blanket bog and, with the raised bog, those are important parts of our ecosystems. It is, in global terms, a somewhat rare commodity, which is, of course, one of the particular reasons that we should protect it. Now, others have made reference to the climate mitigation benefits that are derived from peat. Very important indeed. Scotland, I think, is a special place because of the proportion of peat that we have. I'm a little uncertain and perhaps the minister can clarify for me whether the calculation of our carbon impact is fully taking account of the contribution that peat makes to the mitigation of the effects of human activity on our climate, which might be further incentive for us to look closely at the subject. Of course, peat was originally essentially a domestic heating product. It's now not a particularly common one. In fact, I'm not aware of whether there is a single house in Scotland that is solely reliant on peat for its warmth, but I may find that there are small numbers—certainly we can accept not at all any significant numbers—and Sean, in doing his research for me, found that there were certainly none on Uist. I'm not quite sure why he found that, but he did. Of course, peat was a comparatively cheap fuel. It was a comparatively available fuel. It was on the doorsteps of many people in parts of Scotland. With other primary sources of fuel, such as coal, oil and electricity, peat was, at one time, among our most important fuel sources. Of course, the method of producing peat was the backbreaking task of cutting out the peat from the peat banks laterally by using a machine taking smaller slabs as tractors dragged across—increasing exploitation, of course, and increasing the damage that we're doing to our peat bogs. I will. For taking this intervention, I wanted to focus on horticultural peat and not on the extraction of peat for heating homes, because it's a small part. The extraction for horticulture is a very large industry. Joe Stevenson? The member is, of course, quite correct to focus on that. It's important that we do recognise that peat is something that's been used for a variety of purposes. The debate today, focusing as it does on horticultural peat, which we continue to use long after we've passed on from peat as a fuel. The bottom line is that peat is valuable to us. It has effects on our everyday lives. When we take it out for horticultural projects, we do diminish the ability of peat to contribute in other areas of our lives. Claudia Beamish referred to its filtering effects and benefits to the water supply. For those of us who enjoy the occasional malt whisky, we particularly benefit from the use of some small amount of peat in that industry. However, more interestingly, the existence of peat bogs touches very significantly on natural ways of mitigating the effects of flooding. When we extract peat for horticulture, it has much wider effects than perhaps many of our urban dwellers are likely to be aware of. They will participate in recreational use of peatlands, angling, walking, and are uniquely Scottish experience. I hope that the Government will look to reducing the use of peat in compost. The damaging impacts need to be reduced. We need to substitute peat in our horticultural products. I give all my support to the motion that Rob Gibson has brought to us today. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I draw members' attention to my agricultural interests in the register of members' interests, and I congratulate Rob Gibson on securing this debate. Scotland holds a very high proportion of the European and World Blanket Bog resource of peat, comprising about 15 per cent of the global total for this habitat. The north-west of Scotland has the highest percentage cover of peatlands anywhere in Europe. This is an internationally important resource that we must cherish and make the most of. The flow country has been added to the tentative list for UNESCO World Heritage Site. As Rob Gibson said, our peatlands are critical in terms of biodiversity, carbon and water. Their value as a carbon sink is massive, with Scottish peat's estimate to hold around 1,620 megatons of carbon. It can play a part in meeting our climate change and emission reduction targets as peatlands, in good condition, can sequester up to an additional 2.8 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per hectare per year. We have consistently supported efforts to restore damaged peatlands, and, while recognising the current efforts that are being made on peatland restoration, we believe that there is significant potential for the work to be extended. Those peatlands support much biodiversity, much more than conifer plantations, many of which are planted on areas of peat that were open peatland before. Of course, they also support low-level grazing of sheep and deer, which produces income as well. In relation to the extraction of peat for horticulture, I am aware that the Scottish planning policy confirms that planning authorities have seek to protect areas of peatland, and the state's extraction is only acceptable in areas of degraded peatland, which has been significantly damaged by human activity and where the conservation value is low and restoration is not possible. That planning policy must be adhered to and enforced. We recognise the Scottish Government's stated willingness to support market-led initiatives to reduce the demand for and the use of peat in horticulture, when we encourage greater efforts in this regard as the UK seeks to phase out the use of peat in the horticultural sector by 2030 at the latest. We should recognise the progress made to date. B&Q, for example, ought to be commended for rooting their bedding plants in virtue of peat-free compost, but we should also be aware that further research and development is required to both identify appropriate cost-effective and quality alternatives to peat and give confidence that those alternatives will meet their needs at minimal risk to their businesses. Another issue that we need to consider is the need to ensure that there is a level playing field across Europe, and we need to gain European and indeed international consensus on a strategy for peat reduction. It is my belief that the significance of peat should have been included when land classification parcels were drawn up in the new common agricultural policy, and I have alluded to this many times in the past. If those areas of peatland are so important, then surely they should draw down a level of subsidy which ensures land managers will keep them in their present condition or try and improve them. The fact is that most peatland attracts a payment of 10 euros per hectare where arable ground attracts 220 euros, i.e. 22 times as much. This may be fair in terms of food production, but it doesn't take into account the public good that the peatland is producing. While it's too late for this round of CAP negotiations, I feel any new round should include a figure that takes in the public good element which farmers with peat on their ground produce for everybody else. A recognition of the importance of this type of land should make an enormous difference to hill farmers in the highlands and islands who have difficulties sustaining their livelihoods on the payments received under the CAP. I would call for a derogation of crofters who still burn peat, as Rob Gibson mentioned. As someone said recently, he said, you get four heats from burning peat, first when you cut it, second when you turn it, third when you carry it home and lastly fourth when you finally burn it. Home consumption of peat is a tradition which would do little harm and it would be sad to lose the famed peat wreaks so remembered in the tradition and poetry and songs of highland culture and the islands. Equally, peat smoke salmon and sea trudge from hebride and smokery in the north-east and other smokers is quite delicious and I thoroughly recommend it. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much. I now call on Graham Day after which to move to closing speech from the minister. Let me begin by thanking Rob Gibson for securing this debate on what is, as Claudia Beamish acknowledged, an extremely important subject. I guess out with wee peatland anaracs and let's acknowledge that my friend Mr Gibson is the anaracs anarac in this area. The majority of people might not understand the pressing need to better protect their peatlands and yet Scotland is home to around 60 per cent of the UK's peatlands covering around 1.9 million hectares and these represent our most significant carbon store. Scottish peatlands hold almost 25 times the amount of carbon that all other vegetation in the UK put together stores. To put this into perspective, the carbon stored in Scotland's peatlands is equivalent to 180 years of our current carbon emissions and it's this carbon below the bog surface that is so important and must be protected. Just 1.6 per cent of these carbon stores being released would be equivalent to total annual human carbon emissions from Scotland, ensuring that these carbon stores are secure and it's vital in order to reduce the effects of climate change, obviously. Carbon storage, of course, is not the only benefit to these vast peatlands. The relationship with water is also beneficial, as it is to vegetation and wildlife. Raised bogs support many rare and declining species such as bog rosemary, cranberry and the large leaf butterfly, while blanket bogs are known for their multiple moorland breeding birds. However, there are unfortunately a number of threats to these valued areas, burning, drainage, overgrazing and commercial peat extraction, to name but a few. Those are real threats, which are making a huge dent in our peat soils. It is estimated that 70 per cent of Scotland's blanket bogs and up to 90 per cent of the raised bogs have been negatively affected and would benefit from restoration. Scotland's area of intact raised bog has declined from 28,000 hectares to 2,500 hectares, and it is recognised that commercial peat extraction for horticulture is one of the main reasons for that. However, although I agree that the level of extraction cannot continue and that those areas are already damaged must be restored, there needs to be some understanding towards industries that rely on peat for agricultural purposes and are taking voluntary steps to reduce usage. One of those industries that are using extracted peat is the soft fruit sector. Based on my constituencies of companies, Angus Growers, a group of 19 soft fruit producers, which has used peat for numerous fruits, particularly strawberries and raspberries, the specific qualities of the peat enabled soft fruits and vegetables produced in Scotland and otherwise impossible volumes and value. The peat has worked particularly well for the strawberries and raspberries crops because of its stability, predictability and cheapness. The peat's ability to buffer water and nutrients allows for a larger margin of error and easier management when growing fruit. Alternatives exist, however, and the best alternative coir currently costs about 30 per cent more and is imported from Sri Lanka. I am told that, since funding of half of the difference of cost has been available to produce our organisations through the fresh fruit and vegetable scheme, Angus Growers have begun moving using coir rather than peat. Indeed, in 2014, they reduced their use of peat by almost 8,000 cubic metres, a drop of 40 per cent. Although new raspberries and blackberries planted into pots now are using coir rather than peat, about 25 per cent of strawberries were planted into coir this year. However, those advances have not been without difficulties. Growing techniques and crop nutrition have had to be adapted to maintain production. Something that has only been possible with Angus Growers' in-house team of agronomists carrying out many trials across many crops. That, of course, takes time. As well as those advantages are impressive and encouraged to be replicated through the country, I am sure that there are other groups who should acknowledge that they do not have the same resources and will not be able to change and adapt as quickly as Angus Growers have. That is why I believe that a managed move from peat to alternative substrates such as coir is necessary. It cannot be a case of stopping peat extraction immediately, and I accept that that is not what Mr Gibson is seeking. The Angus Growers turned the word from Scottish fruit alone last year, which was £31 million—a huge amount of money going into Scotland's economy. Since incentives such as fresh fruit and vegetable schemes have been introduced, a real change has been made in how soft fruit is growing. That, I believe, should be recognised. I strongly agree that commercial peat extraction must come to an end in order to protect peat ones and allow them to thrive as they should, but it should not be done in an abrupt way that is to the obvious detriment of specific agricultural industries and, indeed, our hugely successful food and drink sector. I would also like to reiterate other members' comments and congratulate Rob Gibson for securing this member's debate this afternoon, recognising the importance of Scotland's peatlands and their need for protection. This is the second time this month that we have had a member's debate on peatlands issues. I think that what this demonstrates is how much we all value the recognition of an important component of Scotland's soils now. As I indicated during Christian Allard's debate on 6 May on the north-east mosses, the recognition of our soils is timely in this year of the United Nations year of soils. Scotland holds a very important share of the global peatland resource. I am conscious that, in celebrating our peatlands, I am repeating some of the aspects of what I said on 6 May. However, it is relevant and contextual to today's discussions, focusing on the particular issue of commercial extraction of peat for horticultural use. The Scottish Government has long recognised the importance of peatlands last year with SNH. We consulted on a national peatland plan, and that sets out the benefits of peat and peatland habitats and highlights the actions that are and can be taken to support land managers to protect, manage and, where needed, to restore our peatlands. Building on that consultation, I look forward to launching the finalised plan in the new future. Currently, 63 per cent of blanket bog, 60 per cent of raised bog and 72 per cent of fen marsh and swamp features on designated sites are assessed as being in favourable condition, others are not. Action is needed to improve the peatlands, to maximise their benefits and contribution to Scotland. That is why we are highlighting work to restore peatlands under our priority projects for action in the biodiversity route map to 2020, which will be published soon. For many decisions, there are potentially trade-offs between different land uses that need to be considered. Our land use strategy, which is due to be refreshed by next March, is an important articulation of that. Many trade-offs relate to sensible and appropriate questions as to which use is the most appropriate use, for example forestry, agriculture or conservation management. Each is appropriate in the right area in the right context and should be seen as a relevant choice. However, today's debate highlights the need to protect the peatlands that we have, and we focus particularly on the themes of protect and manage well. I welcome that as much of the recent consideration has been around restoration opportunities. Those are important, of course, but they are reactive to historic actions and we are well placed to learn from those lessons. Extracting peat for horticultural use is different. The Scottish Government believes and agrees that there are better sources of achieving horticultural outcomes. Something that I appreciate is of value to gardeners and horticulturists across Scotland, and we are absolutely committed to working with others to develop alternative commercial products that deliver what is needed. Tomorrow, I am visiting Gardening Scotland. I expect to see such alternative products. As Rob Gibson said, new technology provides good, effective alternatives to peat. Where it can, the Scottish Government has taken appropriate action. Scotland's national planning framework 3 recognises the important habitat and carbon store role of peatlands, and of course Scottish planning policy is for development plans to protect areas of peatland, but it also establishes a policy approach for those situations where commercial extraction of peat might occur. That is a proportionate approach in recognising that there may be a wish from some for peat extraction, providing direction to limited circumstances where that might be permitted, and planning authorities would need to consider applications for peat extraction against the relevant development plan policies and those of the Scottish planning policy and national planning framework 3 were relevant. The Scottish Government believes that there are better sources of compost than peat. I take the point that Jimmy McGregor has raised about recognising the importance of peat extraction by crofting communities. We recognise that as a cultural and a traditional activity, reflecting the absence of alternatives such as wood and coal in many of our remote rural communities, that is a very practical point. From the environmental perspective, most extraction for horticulture comes from our very limited resource of woodland raised bogs, whereas crofters, as Jimmy McGregor said, cut their peats on the much more extensive and widespread blanket bogs. I am also advised that where good practice is employed, such as replacing turf and ensuring that cut-over areas are kept well, that is much more sustainable than commercial extraction over large areas. In conclusion, I thank Rob Gibson for bringing this debate forward this afternoon. I think that this has been a very useful debate. I agree with all the members who have highlighted the value that our peatlands provide, the need to protect them, which is reflected in our planning policy. I also agree the need to avoid uses such as for horticulture, where alternatives exist. Ending this use is not just a Scottish challenge, it is a global one, and the Scottish Government is committed to doing its part now. The Scottish Government is also committed to supporting the phasing out of peat in horticulture, and we will use the finalised peatland plan to help to press the agenda forward further. I will certainly give careful consideration to the further recommendations that were made by Rob Gibson this afternoon. Thank you all. I now suspend this meeting of Parliament until 2.30 this afternoon.