 The next item of business is a date on motion 3573, in the name of Fergus Ewing and developing forestry in Scotland. I invite members who wish to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons now. I call on Fergus Ewing to speak to and move the motion. Cabinet Secretary, 12 minutes, please. Trees cover 18 per cent of the land area of Scotland. Our forestry resources represent 45 per cent of the UK total and 60 per cent of UK softwood production. Forestry contributes almost £1,000 million a year to the Scottish economy, and it supports 25,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Private plantings cover over 965,000 hectares, while the national forest estate covers 640,000 hectares, some 8.2 per cent of Scotland. The impressive statistics emphasise the enormous importance of woods and forestry to Scotland's people, to her communities, her economy and her environment. They explain the Government's unequivocal commitment to forestry and to maintaining the national forest estate. That commitment is backed by ambition, which we now want to extend. Having considered the progress made towards meeting the annual planting target of 10,000 hectares, we have extended our ambition. The draft climate change plan that was published last week by my colleague Graesanna Cunningham proposes to increase the target so that, by 2024-25, we are creating 15,000 hectares of woodland per annum. As one of the very few economic activities that absorbs more carbon than it produces and supplies low-carbon materials for building, forestry is crucial to our environmental objectives. Trees remove about 10 million tonnes of CO2 each year, and are home to over 200 plant, bird and animal species, including some unique to Scotland. Some will rightly question this increase when, as I fully acknowledge, we have not yet managed to meet the previous annual target. However, I hope to be able to reassure them today why I consider this new target achievable. To reassure both Conservatives and Labour that our approach will address the sort of issues that their amendments fairly highlight. Perhaps I can say at this point that I am minded to accept both the Labour and the Conservative amendments in perhaps an unprecedented display of magnanimity on my part. I wanted to extend that magnanimity to the Greens, and I would have done so were it not for the fact that, unfortunately, the amendment is just a bit too prescriptive. By accepting it, it would effectively pre-empt the debate on the forestry bill and pre-empt a proper consideration of the consulties to that bill, whose views we need fully to take into account. However, I am happy if it would help to meet with the Green representatives, and I am very happy to discuss that with a sympathetic eye. I thought that it would be useful to ad-lib at that point. We are putting in place all the necessary components for success. Funding, appetite, process, innovation, land skills and political will. We intend to increase the financial support that is available for tree planting and management from £36 million to £40 million in the current year, provided that our budget is supported, as I hope it will. Under every opportunity, resources and future budgetary pressures are allowing, I will seek to invest more funding and planting and be and advocate their anent. Although our target has been challenging, there has been a lot of tree planting happening in Scotland. Between 2007 and 2015, the Government supported the creation of over 54,000 hectares of new woodland with investment of more than £230 million. Our processing sector, which I believe is fair to say is globally renowned, has also made significant investments, welcome investments in recent years, a sure sign of confidence in and by the industry. That includes firms such as James Jones and Sons and inward investors such as Norbord, who operate in Teralia in my constituency. In 2015, the timber harvest was nearly 7 million tonnes. That is seven times the size of the 1976 harvest. Interest in investment in forestry in Scotland is growing steadily. Scotland created 83 per cent of all new woodland in the UK in 2015-16. Timber production in Scotland has grown by 23 per cent since 2007. Timber availability is projected to expand further to 11.9 million cubic metres by 2025. The streamlining of processes is enabling this trend. The new forestry grant scheme has been well received, and Forestry Commission Scotland has now approved more than 7,400 hectares of new planting since the scheme opened in October 2015. 71 per cent of the approved planting is productive, 29 per cent focusing on other benefits such as biodiversity or flood alleviation. We can streamline the approval process further and create more certainty for investors. Last summer, I appointed former chief planner Jim McKinnon to review and identify how the process could be improved. I accepted Mr McKinnon's recommendations in principle, and the Forestry Commission Scotland's plan to implement those recommendations will be published shortly. That plan will be key to delivering our new planting targets. The availability of land is also key. Currently, Scotland only has 18 per cent of forest cover compared with 37 per cent for the EU as a whole, twice as much, and 31 per cent worldwide. A study has shown that 30 per cent of our land is suitable for growing trees without using prime agricultural land or planting on important conservation sites. There is clearly room for growth. I believe that the case for increase woodland creation is compelling, but I know that others remain to be convinced. Some are particularly concerned about the prospect of a return to 1980s practice when a monoculture approach to conifer plantation was implemented. Let me be clear. This Government will not oversee any return to the bad old days of blanket forest planting. Ours is a modern vision in which woodland expansion must respect modern standards of sustainable management such as the UK forestry standard. Availability of land is a key issue, and we will work closely with local authorities and, of course, communities in tackling it. We also want to see sustainable mixed land use, which is why I am pleased to support the work that has been led by the National Sheep Association on sheep and trees to promote the benefits of tree planting for sheep farming. That does not mean sacrificing one land use for another. Farming and forestry can work well together when managed in an integrated way. Scotland has plenty of land where planting trees is absolutely the right thing to do, and that will be our focus, not in prime agricultural land or on valuable habitats for wildlife. To meet our tree planting ambitions, we must keep skilled professionals working across all sectors. We also need more young people to take up careers and opportunities in forestry to join the many forest apprentices who are now working in the sector. The work of organisations such as Scottish Forestry and Timber technology industry leadership growth, OWLs and Lantra, is crucial in that regard, and we should use all available powers and levers to establish modern statutory and operational requirements to support this valuable and growing sector. That is why I intend to introduce a bill, Presiding Officer, in this parliamentary session to complete the devolution of forestry and provide a new legislative framework. While we have consulted on our draft proposals and are currently considering responses, I want to reach out across Parliament to offer to work with members to get this framework and these arrangements right. To go back off piece for a moment, I omitted to say that we have of course also worked with the Liberal Democrats prior to today, and I thought that I should correct that omission from earlier on. That underscores the fact that I am determined to work with all members to try to get these matters right. Our aim is to preserve the knowledge, skills and expertise that we have in place and to ensure that those are deployed to best effect in localities and communities. However, we want to build on the success of Forest Enterprise Scotland to create an enhanced development and management body that will allow us to maintain and indeed grow the national forest estate as an asset for the nation. Forest Enterprise Scotland already partners with the private sector and communities in the management of land, supporting 11,000 jobs, many in rural areas. That work involves spending over £50 million with predominantly SMEs working on the estate. The estate also supports more than 100 projects with rural and urban communities on work, including urban regeneration, renewable energy, affordable housing, leisure, recreation, mountain biking and opportunities for community businesses. I am sure and I hope that I will receive many examples of those good works from members across the chamber during the debate. To date, managing the estate has involved small discrete purchases and disposals of appropriate land and forests. That careful approach will continue, but we should also consider how best to make best use of the resources that are realised from such sales. If we are to fully develop the potential of trees, woods and forests for Scotland, if we are to increase their contribution to our communities, our economy and our environment, we need to work together. I hope that we can do so in this Parliament. There is a greater role for people and communities to play. Currently, over 200 community groups all over Scotland are involved in managing woodlands and forests. I intend to ensure that many more are involved and included in the future. I want to add to the success of the 31 communities that already own over 10,000 acres transferred under the national forest land scheme. The largest forest owner in Scotland is, in fact, the Government. Like the Greens, this Government wants to see ownership increasingly devolved to communities. Today, I can advise that Forest Enterprise Scotland is developing a new community asset transfer scheme, a digital resource to provide more information and support to communities seeking to buy or lease parts of the national forest estate. To conclude, modern Scottish forestry is indeed a rare thing. It is a win for communities, a win for the economy and a win for the environment. Our forests come in all shapes and sizes, the productive spruce forests of Galloway, the iconic native pine woods in my constituency and treasured small pockets of well-used local woodlands and glens scattered throughout our villages, towns and cities. A study by WWF published last year highlights the challenges. Unless we produce more of our timber and reduce dependency and imports, the current ratio of domestic to imported supply can only be supported until 2030. If we do not plant more trees by 2050, the UK will be importing nearly 80 per cent of timber to meet demand. That surely is something that we should all work together to tackle. That is why, in moving the motion in my name, I seek the support of everyone in this Parliament in a shared national endeavour to fully develop the enormous potential offered by planting more forestry and more woodland. Thank you, cabinet secretary. I call on Peter Chapman to speak to a move amendment 3573.1. Mr Chapman, seven minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I refer members to my register of interests. I am glad to be able to speak in this debate today, particularly as we await the final plans from the Scottish Government on the future arrangements for forestry management. I think that it is fair to say that there is a great deal of consensus across the chamber on the goals and priorities for forestry management here in Scotland. We all recognise that forestry is a vitally important part of the rural economy, and I particularly welcome James McKinnon's report, which is a practical and clear document with many good recommendations. With Scotland's forestry sector currently contributing around £1 billion and supporting 25,000 jobs, it is vital that we encourage what can only be described as a growth industry. It is also important that forestry is valued in its own right, and for our professionals to demonstrate that planting trees will secure the long-term supply of productive timber, sustain jobs in rural areas and help Scotland achieve its ambitious climate change targets. As forestry will soon come under the direct control of Scottish ministers, we must ensure that it is not subject to the whims of electoral cycles. That is an industry that requires a long-term view and a consistent mindset. My colleagues and I are clear that we must retain the knowledge, experience and long-term planning that we currently gain from the Forestry Commission, and indeed I would argue that we should strengthen and develop further that skill base. I would like to welcome the new increasing annual target that is rising to 15,000 hectares of new trees by 2025, and I believe that that is an achievable target. I am concerned, however, that, with this Government having missed its target of 10,000 hectares being planted every year since 2012, we are setting ourselves up for failure, unless the process of applying for permission to plant is simplified, sped out, sped up and cost taken out. Less than 20 per cent of Scotland land area is currently forest, which compares poorly to Spain at 37 per cent, Finland at 73 per cent and the EU average of 37 per cent. In north-east Scotland, 17 per cent of agricultural land is currently reported as farm woodland area, slightly more than 80,000 hectares. I have a good example here. I know a north-east farmer, Mr John Monroe, who demonstrated the potential benefits of farm woodlands on his farm. After buying 60 hectares of heavy clay land in 1991, John set about establishing commercial woodland mostly Sitka. Since then, he has succeeded very well. Taking advantage of high-quality pine wood, a daily suited for timber processing and working to deliver his stock over winter, ties in well to his farm business and is now delivering profits and employing a member of staff. This is a model that is absolutely the norm in Scandinavian countries. Across Finland, Sweden and Norway, most farmers are foresters, and it is nothing unusual for a farmer to harvest crops over the summer and to use the same equipment and tractors to harvest timber over the winter months. We need, I would argue, a complete change of mindset among the farming community here if we are to encourage more planting by farmers. Unlike Scandinavia, Scottish farmers are not natural planters of trees, and there is little history of farming and forestry being integrated in Scotland. The argument has often been that good sheep country has been used to plant trees and livelihoods have been lost as a result. However, it is often the case that this land under trees will protect just as many jobs and deliver more output per acre than it will farming sheep. However, I am convinced that there are large ways of land in Scotland where the sheep have already gone off the hills, but those areas have not been planted and are basically abandoned. Here is a valuable resource and a real source of income for the landowner being wasted. I agree with much of what James McKinnon says in his report. However, I do disagree with his suggestion of accredited agents having the authority to certify planting applications. I believe that that decision needs to be taken by the Forestry Commission, but the FCS needs to tell its staff to be decisive and get on with it. I agree that informing and engaging communities should happen earlier and should be proportionate to the scale and impact of any scheme. While subsidies cover the first 10 years of planting, it takes decades more to be in a position where trees are mature enough to be valuable and to provide real income for the grower. How do we support farmers who are effectively losing their income from their farmland over a long period? Perhaps, when the Cabinet Secretary comes to presenting the draft forestry bill to the Scottish Parliament, he will consider ways that we could encourage the growth of farm woodland. Not only would this assist in making farmers less dependent on volatile food prices by diversifying their businesses, but it is vital to deliver our three planting targets. Brexit undoubtedly poses a challenge for funding new forests post-2020, but the answer is simple—the money must be allocated. Reports tell us that we are on course to important, nearly 80 per cent of our timber needs by 2050, and we must do better than that. It is vital that we act now to ensure a strong forest production sector for the future. Of course, we need to ensure that we are planting the right trees to create forests that have real value for sawmills and will not just end up as expensive firewood. Since around 2005, not only have we failed to meet our targets of 10,000 hectares, but unfortunately two thirds of the woodland that we have planted has been hardwood and that has a limited industrial use. Those are not the trees that our sawmills require, and this failure to plant sufficient high-quality pine forests should have been seen much earlier in measures that have been taken to rebalance planting. Thankfully, that has now been done. I am fully on board with focusing on Sitka planting as outlined by Ingem MacKinnon's report. Of course, we cannot just roll out Sitka and ignore other commercial species, but there are clear advantages to Sitka. Its rotation age is only 40 years rather than 80 as with Scott's Pine and Larch. However, I fully recognise that the days of blanket planting of single species are gone, and a well-designed forest nowadays will have open spaces and different varieties to encourage biodiversity. I will just finish there. I will just say that we can save carbon capture as well and we can help to alleviate flooding, but we know that the trees will take in carbon. Just move the amendment now, please. My colleagues and I are ready to work with the Scottish Government to deliver their ambitious plans. Just move your amendment, please. But we remain concerned that not enough work is being done. I move the amendment, my name. It is how long a conclusion takes. I now call Rhoda Grant, please, to speak to a move amendment 3573.2 in six minutes, and I know that you will not be naughty. You are tempting me now, Presiding Officer. We welcome the further devolution of forestry and, indeed, the forestry commission, and it should help the Scottish Government to achieve its planting targets. We also want to look at how we use our forestry and how we grow timber. We agree that the responsibility for forestry itself should be devolved, but alongside that, we need to work with other parts of the UK to preserve the benefits of working together in certain areas such as research and disease control. Neither the UK nor devolved Governments will have the resources to replicate alone what has been achieved through shared resources. We would urge the Scottish Government to look at ways in which research could be carried out as a joint venture throughout the UK to replicate that research and development work that people really value. The same with disease control as currently happens. The UK works well in this area with animal health and interagency working, and something like that, linking up disease control and planting as well, would be very much desirable with the devolving of forestry to the Scottish Government. A number has expressed concern about how forestry will be managed going forward and the changes to the role of the forestry commission and the perception of a land Scotland agency that will cover much wider than forestry. There is a fear that it will become a faceless bureaucracy one step away from Government but unpenetrable and unaccountable. It will be run by career civil servants who will know nothing about forestry. One of the benefits that we are told of the forestry commission is that it is staffed by foresters who understand the industry and its producers. We are not persuaded that one large organisation trying to do so many jobs will work, and it is also a smacks of centralisation. I agree that the blanket planting of Sitka Spruce throughout Scotland was one of the worst things that happened. It was done mostly for tax breaks. I am glad that the cabinet secretary has acknowledged that and given the commitment that that will not happen going forward. However, we need more planting, and the Scottish Government, as has been stated before and indeed, as the cabinet secretary said, has failed to reach targets year on year. Therefore, we need a strategy that works. The McKinnon report looks at ways of achieving that by cutting through red tape, and that is to be welcomed. We agree, though, with Comfor about the role that he proposes for certifying forestry schemes below the threshold of environmental impact assessment, that it should be carried out by the forestry commission staff and not private agents, because certifying agents to do this work will also boost their business but, at the same time, bring detriment to other businesses for agents. My reading of the report suggests that many of the problems that exist are due to the people involved in their knowledge of the system, and that suggests to me that the systems in place need to be changed but that staff require better training as well. Systems have to be in place to allow a more streamlined application process for those schemes that do not require an environmental impact assessment. Likewise, it needs to be clear that an more in-depth application is required to allow the system to work. We need a national plan of where we encourage planting, and likewise, we would not necessarily want tree planting such as on good agricultural land that is required for food production or in areas that would have a detrimental environmental impact. A plan that looks at where forests are required not just for land use and wood production but for the environment and, indeed, recreational uses. Forests close to towns and cities not only provide timber very close to market but also provide excellent recreational areas, encouraging people out into forests for the good of their mental and physical health. However, areas that lend themselves to planting are often on poorer land, therefore away from towns and cities and also away from easy access. We have a lot of landlocked forests that are ready for harvesting, but getting the timber to market is a real problem. Rural roads are often narrow of poor construction, poorly maintained, and a large number of heavy timber lorries can cause a lot of damage and therefore impact on other road users. Where possible, forest roads should be designed to get timber as close as possible to air roads and railways. Railways are ideal because many of the tracks in our rural areas are underused and have capacity to take timber. However, it needs planning, the proper sidings and loading equipment to get timber on to the rail line. That requires Government funding. Too often, it has not been well thought out and sustainable. Past planting grants have led to people chasing the funding. Therefore, funding needs to be in place that ensures that planting happens in the most appropriate places, with a clear plan as to how you access the timber. We will support the Conservative motion, which makes many of the points that we are making, albeit slightly differently. We also share concerns about the Green amendment. We have the disadvantage of speaking before them, so they cannot make their points before we have spoken, but we do not wish that national forestry is privatised. There is a fear that its amendment might lead to that, but I look forward to listening to what they say in the debate. We welcome the debate and get the time to look at planning and how we deal with forestry constructively. We will support the Government to reach its planting targets but we will hold them to account if they do not. I move the amendment in my name. Welcome the debate on developing forestry in Scotland. It is nine years since the last debate in Government business. I started my working life in forestry by destroying the berks of Aberfeldy to plant conifer plantations on behalf of the Midland Bank in the 1980s. I then went on to Aberdeen University to study forestry. It was whilst I was at university that I campaigned against the forestation of the peatlands of Caithness in Sutherland. I learned years later that, as a consequence of that, I was blacklisted from employment in the forestry sector. I have some experience of this topic. Having said that, we are a little bit disappointed in the lack of ambition that the Government has for forestry. On 22 March this year, it will be the 50th anniversary of the Forestry Act of 1967. Notwithstanding devolution in 1999, the statutory framework for forestry and the responsibilities of the Forestry Commission has moved on little. We welcome the complete devolution of forestry, of course, but in addition to reforming governance and new mechanisms to achieve forestation targets, a new act could, for example, open with a new suite of statutory purposes for forest policy in Scotland, including climate change mitigation, supporting the rural economy, advancing land reform, environmental restoration and promoting social policy in the fields of health and wellbeing. In particular, a new act should incorporate a statutory duty on ministers to promote sustainable forest management and implement the UN sustainable development goal, of which 15.2 states that, by 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally. In that light, our amendment calls for two elements of a more ambitious approach to the future of forestry in Scotland. The first relates to the ownership of Scotland's expanding forest cover. That has become dominated by owners who live far away from the land that they own, often in offshore tax havens and whose motivations are limited solely often to the financial and tax advantages associated with ownership. A few years ago, I undertook a study into the pattern of private ownership of Scotland's forests and I was astounded when I asked the Forestry Commission about the source of ownership data that it had submitted to the UN Economic Commission for Europe in 2011 to be told that it was based upon estimates. Estimates which, in turn, were derived from a survey carried out UK-wide in 1977. Unlike most European countries, the Scottish Government and Forestry Commission collect minimal information on forest holdings and publish nothing. What we now know is that Scotland stands at the extreme end of countries in Europe with the most concentrated pattern of private ownership. Over 44 per cent of forest holdings in Scotland are over 100 hectares in extent. Sweden is next at 10 per cent, and the European average is 0.7 per cent. The majority of Scotland's private forest area is owned by absentee owners, and a third of those live outside Scotland. Across Europe, by contrast, forestry is owned by co-operatives, communities and municipalities in countries such as Sweden and Finland, companies such as Cydra and Mezzalito co-operative, owned substantial extents of forests managed on behalf of their members. The second part of my amendment relates to reform of the governance of the national forest estate. I heard what the cabinet secretary said in relation to this, and I look forward to further discussions on that. 25 years ago, I asked the prominent historian of the Highlands and Islands, Dr James Hunter, to write an editorial for a magazine that I was editing about the future of forestry in Scotland. A country to the prevailing orthodoxy of the time, he noted that, and I quote, The Forestry Commission is to Scottish Forestry what collectivisation was to Soviet agriculture, and he went on to argue for reform in the way that state forests are managed. He made a very good point, I thought. Public ownership of land does not necessarily mean state ownership, real public ownership means ownership by the public. There is a common belief that the Forestry Commission owns the national forest estate. It does not, of course. All land managed by the Forestry Commission is owned by Scottish ministers. Section 3 of the 1967 act, which the Government is intent on repealing, makes clear that the Forestry Commission is merely the manager of land placed at its disposal by Scottish ministers. A new forestry act, in our view, should allow a much wider range of bodies, such as community groups, environmental charities, co-operatives and local councils, who can be appointed by Scottish ministers to manage parts of the national forest estate, removing the monopoly that is currently enjoyed by the Forestry Commission. Finally, I want to raise two further matters in the short time that I have available. First, on achieving the Government's target for forestry expansion, this will be challenging. Has the Forestry Commission briefing helpfully distributed by the cabinet secretary yesterday makes clear that we know where forestry expansion should happen in broad terms, but it is not happening. Given the climate change imperative of forestry expansion, we need to develop new mechanisms through planning and fiscal policy to make new forestry obligatory. Second, the Forestry Commission repositioning programme is based on recommendations from a review in 2004. In an answer to a written question in October last year, I was told by the cabinet secretary that the Scottish Government has yet to decide on any further sales programme beyond those areas that are already notified. I understand that the cabinet secretary is in fact in possession of lists of new proposed sales of the national forest estate and will welcome whether he can confirm whether that is the case or not and whether he will let Parliament know of such plans as soon as possible. In conclusion, is Scotland simply a resource colony for distant corporate, industrial and financial interests, or is it a country to be developed for the benefit of the communities that live and work in rural Scotland? I move the amendment in my name. We now move to the open speeches, and we are tight for time, no time in hand. Any interventions will have to be contained within your six minutes. I call in Emma Harper to be followed by Finlay Carson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Before I continue, I want to remind members that I am the parliamentary liaison officer for the cabinet secretary for rural economy and connectivity. Forestry, woodlands and trees are of great importance to Scotland's rural communities. Forests contribute to the local economy, providing jobs and creating wealth. Forests attract visitors to Scotland and create opportunities for our tourism sector. They are important to our cultural heritage, having inspired generations of artists and writers. Long-established woodlands form part of the historic environment as evidence of earlier settlements and land use patterns. The forestry industry contributes almost a billion pounds per year to the Scottish economy and supports more than 25,000 full-time-equivalent jobs. The national forest estate is one of Scotland's greatest natural assets and generates 395 million and 9 million visitors each year. Dumfries and Galloway, where I was born and live now, is one of the most wooded regions of Scotland. The region produces around 30 per cent of Scotland's annual timber harvest and has a major processing capacity through two large sawmills at Lockerbie and Delbeaty, in addition to a number of smaller facilities. The timber industry employs around 3,000 people across the region. However, continued growth of the industry and increased mechanisation has led to a recognised skills gap. Last year, I welcomed the Minister for Employability and Training to Delbeaty to visit forestry machinery suppliers, Jaspy Wilson. Jaspy Wilson is an example of a company working with young people to fill some of those skills gaps. The minister met apprentices and found out more about the company's partnership with Delbeaty High School. Minister Hepburn got to see first hand the really positive work that they have been doing to offer work experience for pupils, in some cases leading to full apprenticeships, paid at a living wage. Offering our young people meaningful training opportunities in local businesses is vital to our region's economy and, indeed, will help to address national skills shortages in some important areas of activity such as the forestry industry. I am pleased that the SNP Government will introduce a forestry bill to complete the devolution of forestry. The bill will ensure that the Scottish Government has control of all aspects of forestry and transfer the powers and duties of the forestry commissioners as they relate to Scotland to the Scottish ministers. It will see the establishment of a forestry and land management body to focus on the development of the national forest estate. In December, a detailed analysis of the challenges facing the sector by Jim McKinnon, as has been mentioned, was published, outlining a number of recommendations to reduce the complexity and cost of tree planting, all of which have been accepted in principle by the cabinet secretary. Those will include streamlining the process to approve sustainable planting schemes, earlier engagement between tree planting businesses and communities, and a dedicated national forestry commission Scotland team to deal with complex proposals. Those actions will help to ensure that we reach our manifesto commitment to plant 10,000 hectares of trees every year until 2022 and to hasten the approval of planting. That will help to end the uncertainty over the future of forestry, encouraging more private investment in the sector. Stewart Goodall, the chief exec of Confor, recently praised the cabinet secretary for his real political will to tackling barriers to greater tree planting and his commitment to working with the sector to reach 22 million a year. Those actions are especially important given the substantial support that the sector receives from the EU. At this time of uncertainty for so many rural industries, the Scottish Government is focused on creating stability and continued investment in the sector. It is of extreme importance to reassure investors that Scotland is open for business. The Scottish Government has held summits with the forestry sector to listen to their concerns and ambitions. The cabinet secretary has also met with leading representatives from forestry management and investment companies to provide reassurance that the Scottish Government is committed to seeing the forestry sector thrive. Lastly, as well as the economic importance of the sector, it is crucial to recognise the role of forestry that it has to play in achieving Scotland's climate targets. Trees and woodland can help us to adapt to existing and future impacts of climate change, providing opportunities to store carbon, combat air pollution and help to reduce the risks of flooding. In 2009, the Scottish Parliament passed the most ambitious climate change laws anywhere in the world, and we have met the headline target of reducing carbon emissions by 42 per cent by 2020, six years early. Scotland's climate action plan, published last week, sets out how we intend to continue this progress, and forestry is an important piece of the jigsaw. By 2032, Scotland's woodland cover will increase from around 18 per cent to 21 per cent of the Scottish land area. By 2050, Scotland's woodland will be delivering a great level of ecosystem services such as natural flood management and biodiversity enhancement. The forestry sector is so important in many capacities, and I hope that we will see support from the Government's motion across the chamber today and for the action that the SNP has taken to deliver our tree planting targets and to instill confidence and stability in the sector and to maintain the national forest estate as an asset for the nation. Although the forestry sector employs more than 25,000 people across Scotland, the industry is of particular importance to the economy of rural Scotland, including my own constituency of Galloway and West Dumfries. Indeed, Dumfries in Galloway has the largest forest park in the UK and is one of the most forested regions in Scotland, producing somewhere around 30 per cent of Scotland's annual timber harvest. The timber industry is a major employer in the region with over 3,000 jobs across all sectors, and many of the chamber will have heard of BSW timber in Dolbyty with one of the largest sawmills in the country. However, I want to direct my remarks today at the governance of the sector. As we know, the Scottish Government recently consulted on the future of forestry in Scotland ahead of bringing the forestry bill to Parliament. One of the central themes of that bill will be the new organisational arrangements for forestry commission Scotland, and in the recent consultation respondents were specifically asked about their views on the establishment of a dedicated forestry division in the Scottish Government and an agency, an executive agency to marriage Scotland's national forest estate. I look forward to seeing what the Scottish Government brings forward in their bill, but the cynic in me is more than a little concerned that we are witnessing yet again an attempt by this SNP Government to centralise and interfere this time with forestry with little regard for the wider implications that this will have in the industry. If the Government decides to press ahead with absorbing the forestry commission into the Scottish Government, we must see an approach that recognises the long-term nature of forestry as an industry. Excessive tinkering in line with electoral cycles should be avoided at all costs. Furthermore, I urge the cabinet secretary to ensure that under new arrangements a new Government department would be underpinned by some form of independent or external scrutiny. It is in all our interest that Scotland is a viable forestry sector, from which the benefits for local economy, communities and the environment can be maximised. Whatever is decided, I would urge the Government to come to a decision as soon as possible, because at the moment there is a great deal of uncertainty that is negatively impacting on the industry. Indeed, the forestry commission Scotland's annual report raised concerns that, and I quote, uncertainty over its future organisational status has caused difficulty in managing business as usual and has led to increased losses in key staff. Deputy Presiding Officer, concerns surrounding the proposed changes have been raised by a number of organisations such as the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire biosphere. Their response to the consultation highlighted a feeling that the changes would ultimately result in the centralisation of services and decision making. They go on to make the very valid point that one of the main strengths of the current arrangements is regional management. That allows for a local approach with a strong local knowledge base that can be easily engaged with by the local community. In many sectors, SNP Government talk-to-talk about a more local approach, but up to now it has not walked the walk, so perhaps this is the time to do just that. The Woodland Trust also highlighted the risk of professional skills and expertise being lost if a new Government department was set up—expertise and knowledge that is essential to the successful management of our forests. I am not standing here today to claim that the current arrangements are perfect and that no changes are needed at all. However, the Government must use an evidence-based approach and heed the concerns of stakeholders to ensure that any proposals truly improve the current system and bring tangible benefits. That simply cannot be another SNP exercise of centralising power. I urge MSPs to read James McKinnon's analysis of the current arrangements for the consideration and approval of forestry planning proposals to get an insight into some of the problems the sector is facing. It is clear that there is a strong desire across the entire sector for things to work more effectively. When the cabinet secretary brings forward the forest bill to Parliament, we on this side of the chamber will be constructive and open-minded. In making changes, it is important to guard against losing things that currently work and one of the things that I will be looking out for is any attempt by this Government to become more clumbersome in inserting their authority. To conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, Scotland needs a thriving forestry sector, and today's debate has provided us with opportunity to recognise the importance of forestry to our rural economy and communities and environment. We will wait to see what lies in store for the sector, but we must avoid a micromanage approach that sees a loss of expertise and local knowledge from the sector. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Let me make some observations on what is likely to be a fairly consensual debate. We are all travelling in the same direction, and I think that that is a good place to be. Forestry has always been a strategic product in 1511 when the Great Michael was launched. It was the biggest capital ship in the world, weighing 1,000 tonnes. It was 73 metres long, and it required the clearing of every single tree in Fife and the importation of timber from the Baltics and from France. In the 16th century, timber was playing an important part in national life, and it required a huge replanting programme following the building of the Great Michael. Of course, when the Forestry Commission was founded by the act of 1919, it was in the aftermath of World War 1, which had 40,000 kilometres of trenches in France, which were largely lined by timber. The percentage of the UK that was then covered by Forestry has dropped to something in the order of 4 per cent. Timber is not simply an amenity, it is not even simply something that feeds our industry, it is a matter of strategic interest. It is worth saying that, in 1919, in one of the debates in the House of Commons, one of Labour members will thawn in addressing the issue of where the land would be found to plant trees, because that was an issue then, as it is now. He simply said, pinch it, take it over. I think that we have a little more sophisticated approach since then, but, nonetheless, it is a substantial issue. Where is the land to come from? I welcome very much hearing Peter Chapman and I agree with him in this, that we need to find ways of showing farmers that there is an intrinsic value to them, to their businesses, in making some of their land available for forestry. I personally have some interest in using forests for shelter. I think that farmers, in some circumstances, will find that it is useful for that. I say that, because where we live, we are surrounded in three sides by tree and it would be pretty open to the elements if we were not surrounded by trees. There is also an amenity forest in the forest that surrounds us. We have foxes, rodears, badgers, weasels, barn owls, buzzards, woodpeckers, and a whole raft of other things. That is true of forests across the UK. As a national asset, they are something that is of interest to everyone, not simply to the proper industrial interests of bodies like Confor but to everyone who benefits emotionally, practically and economically. For those of us who enjoy walking, forests are among the most attractive places to go walking, provided that is that there are forest trails. If forest around me is an example of the errors that can be made in the past, the forest paths through there are all but overgrown. The forest has never been thinned, I think, the person who planted it. I am not quite sure who it was, by the way, and that addresses the point that Mr Wightman made. The person who planted it basically took the money and ran. It will cost more to take that forest down than it is likely to realise in economic benefit. The management of forests is very important indeed. That is why I very much welcome Jim McKinnon's report on forestry. I think that it is well informed and well researched. Jim is an excellent fellow with only one major defect to his name. He is a supporter of forest mechanics. How sad is that? One has to say that. I think that it is forest mechanics, cabinet secretary, and I am pretty sure that it is. I apologise, Jim, if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure that it is correct. In Scotland, we have beautiful land and we have opportunities for planting more forestry. I think that Rhoda Grant was correct in saying that we have got to plant it where we can harvest it. The one thing that she missed and I would have liked to intervene was that there is opportunity in some places for marine removal of forestry as well. I saw a very effective scheme of that when I visited Rase to open the new pier there as a minister. I think that it was probably the last time I met Charles Kennedy. We had an excellent chat together, as we always did whenever we met him. The number of jobs in forestry can go up—it is substantial already—because the number of uses to which we are putting forest products is increasing. It is now part of biomass, more of our houses are timber-framed and therefore it is important that we have access to our ready supply of forestry goods. Climate change, yes, of course. Particularly new plantings, because young trees are particularly adept at absorbing CO2, whereas older-established forests that are left to moulder, perhaps as the one that surrounds our house, are less adept at absorbing CO2. We have to make sure that we replant after we grant permission for forests to come down. The final thing is, of course—I welcomed last week the assent from the Tory benches from Mr Chapman—that our share of the support for agriculture and forestry would remain the same after 2020. I want to see that delivered, because that is important for this industry, as for rural Scotland as a whole. Forestry bestows us with numerous benefits, as discussed in the chamber today. The Forestry Policy Group depicts some of these and some of this scope excellently, stating that woodlands can double as, I quote, a bank, a playground, meeting place, nature reserve, classroom, lard, a gym, mental health spa and a centre for rehabilitation of those who need help to reorientate their lives, indeed. With regards to my portfolio, as mentioned by others, forestry is salient, as it is the only sector delivering a net emissions reduction so far acting as nature's benevolence in the climate change challenge. That the volume of carbon sequestrated is set to decrease in coming years is a significant missed opportunity. Therefore, the climate change plan in draft, laying out the Scottish Government's renewed ambition for woodland creation, is to be welcomed. Although RSPB has stated that, I quote, woodland management grants and subsidies must be better targeted to ensure that wildlife is also protected and the negative effects of climate change are mitigated while still supporting rural livelihoods and economy. I agree with this view and I hope that the cabinet secretary does as well. One such opportunity is agroforestry, which has multiple benefits and fits, interestingly perhaps, with the comments of others such as Peter Chapman on the encouragement of farmers to have to plant more woodland. The significance of agroforestry is recognised by the Forestry Commission Scotland. It is also interesting to look to France, where the law passed by the French Government on the future of agriculture, food and forestry was definitively adopted in their Parliament supporting agroforestry. The UK Committee on Climate Change has stressed the need to address barriers to an awareness of agroforestry. We must also be constantly aware and challenge ourselves to ensure that we consider the tensions between forestry planting and peatland restoration in relation to climate change and in protecting our fragile ecosystems and wildlife. In terms of protecting our forests and woodlands, it is also essential that we address the issue that is certainly very challenging, which we were discussing this morning in committee, of deer management. In my view, and that of others, I believe, the need for more robust management structures to protect our trees. For tree health, Rhoda Grant has already explored the need for collaborative research across the UK. I would also highlight the importance of the provenance of seedlings and highlight the work of nurseries such as Ravenswood Nursery Clegghorn in South Scotland in that ambition. There are indeed very rich opportunities for community ownership of woodlands and forests, and I welcome the commitments of the Cabinet Secretary today. I also listen carefully to the comments of the Green Party on this. It might be small parcels of land near to villages and towns, or indeed in towns and cities even, for recreational use and contributing to biodiversity through community management. There are also much more adventurous opportunities, such as in South Scotland, where there is a wealth of woodland sites owned and developed by community groups already. Those sites add diversity to the forest culture and are often due praise for their focus on community and on conservation. The Gordon Community Woodland Trust is a prime example of that progressive work. The group purchased the Berwickshire site in 2002 with financial assistance from the Scottish Land Fund and the first funding for land purchase out with the Highlands. Today, the woodland is far more accessible as a space, used by mental health outreach groups and the local primary school, among others. It is managed by motivated and dedicated volunteers in the community to turn a small profit from Christmas tree sales but to deliver huge benefits to community cohesion. We need structures that enable more community and cooperative ownership across Scotland. In my own region, I want to highlight the exciting range of opportunities for uses of wood, not mentioned by others. There is the opportunity of small-scale biomass to support rural fuel poverty, to tackle fuel poverty. There is industrial biomass on quite a small scale as well, such as BHC structural steel-limited in Carnwath, who own their own forestry specifically for their use in their own biomass boilers in their factory. There is also native wood used for house building. There are also many craft and art opportunities with wood. Many of our natives' woods are fine for carving from holly to oak. I highlight one example, the Tweed Valley Forest Festival, which will be taking place in October to highlight those issues. Many MSPs can promote those issues across their regions and constituencies. Finally, I want to highlight the land use strategy and one of the UN's sustainable development goals, which Andy Wightman has mentioned. I commend those to the cabinet secretary as opportunities for forest focus. The status of the land use strategy merits further consideration and the planting of trees, the what, the where and the why can be addressed through guidance on the strategy and, indeed, the bill could bring. As far as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 15.2, I will not read out again what it states as it has already been read by another member, but that is certainly a global aspiration that we should be contributing to. There should, indeed, be a shared national endeavour, as the cabinet secretary said, and we can all explore the way forward together. People are starting to run over time, so please curtail it a bit, please. I call on Graeme Dey to be followed by Edward Mountain. I want to look at the issue from the standpoint of meeting our sequestration targets and the role that farming can play in that. That is not to diminish the importance of forestry from a commercial and related economic perspective, contributing £1 billion a year to the Scottish economy and supporting 25,000 jobs as the sector does really matters. As from a reducing emissions perspective, it is using wood instead of other materials in construction. For its convenience of the environment and climate change committee, and given that Parliament commenced its scrutiny of the new climate plan, I want to focus on my contribution on carbon sequestration at the initial stages. That said, there is a common thread running through the replanting issue, whether you approach it from a climate change or biodiversity, flood management or health benefits, water quality or commercial perspective. That is the raft of challenges that require to be overcome. If we were to start planting 10,000 hectares a year and move on to 15,000 hectares by 2024-25, and increase woodland cover from 18 per cent to 21 per cent by 2032, the actions will require. It is always fair to offer some perspective to the issue and point out that, while the 10,000 hectare target has not been reached to date in 2015-16, Scotland was responsible for 83 per cent of the new woodland that was created across the islands last year. In terms of delivery and ambition in this area, we are light years ahead of England, Northern Ireland and Wales, but the fact is that we have set targets and will clearly require a change in attitude and approach if we are to get to the kind of planting levels that we require to secure all of those necessary benefits and, of course, ensure that there is not a crisis around access to wood for commercial purposes in years to come. We need to get over that old mantra that planting trees on less productive agricultural land is somehow a sign of farming failure to find the means of making it easier for tenant farmers to plant on their farms without suffering detriment and to be identifying passers-of-land that are currently not being utilised for any meaningful purpose, the kind that Peter Chapman mentioned, which would be suited to hosting forestry on whatever scale and to deploy the land use strategies on a regional and more local scale to ensure that we begin to integrate land use far better than we have done up until now. Implementation of the McKinnon report where it identifies ways to remove barriers to planting will help us on this journey as, in terms of enticing farming participation, will the move to allowing farmland planted under the forestry grant scheme to still be eligible for basic payments? Top-top by the Scottish Government's planned exploration of a scheme that would see farmers paid for sequestering carbon through tree planting from 2020 onwards, as it identified in the climate plan, we might just secure our wheel breakthrough. While there is much more that we should be demanding of farmers and emissions reduction terms without increasing financial support, there is nothing wrong with incentivising them to deliver new step-change behaviour that brings about measurable carbon sequestration benefits. There is some good work going on already in establishing new woodlands and improving management of existing small-scale ones with regard to the latter. I was interested to hear recently about leader funding being used to support the first stage of the innovative Argyll Small Woods Cooperative project, which is helping farmers and other small woodland owners to manage those woodlands. In terms of the former, some interesting work is going on in Central Scotland with the CSGN, providing support and advice to farmers within the green network area around opportunities for woodland creation. That is going to the foundations for farmers to access the SRDP's forest grant scheme. The last 15 months have seen 1,500 hectares of woodland approved and supported by £10 million in funding. Clearly, courtesy of Brexit, the future nature of leader and SRDP is in doubt, along with a 55 per cent underwriting of the forest grant scheme from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. In the short term, at least, we have the funding streams accessible for important purposes and to establish some momentum. In increasing planting and keeping with the woodland carbon code, we need to be mindful of another environmental impact, that of deer. The deer management issue is one that the environment climate change and landform community has been wrestling with the past few months, concluding its extensive evidence gathering only this morning. The public purse in Scotland is facing an annual bill going forward of around £30 million to install new fencing and repair existing protections to keep deer out of our current forest footprint and allow it to flourish. As we deploy public money to fund new planting with all its benefits, we must seek to reduce the risk of the double whammy of having to then increase spend on measures to protect that investment from the impacts of deer. I believe that the central Scotland green network scheme already has a ffencing element to the funding. We will always need to fence, but I would contend that we need to strike a better balance between that and culling. Another challenge for the forestry is coping with the ravages of disease with 12,000 hectares of public-owned woodland having had to be cleared over the past six years in response to disease impacts. It makes sense that, while full control of our forestry will be passing to Scotland, we will still maintain cross-border co-operation and plant health alongside developing common codes and shared research. The UK forestry standard is helpful, for example, in resisting the pressure from some quarters to allow planting on peat of a depth of more than 50 centimetres, something that is completely counterproductive in carbon sequestration terms. It is welcome that it is to be revised to improve the sustainability of woodland development. In finishing, although I would not, as others have, the concerns of respected bodies such as the woodland trust around an aspect of full devolution of forestry functions. As we have heard, they are fearful of the consequences of forest policy and regulation being moved in-house, as it will, to be overseen by a forestry division of the Scottish Government. Those concerns around impact may well be unfounded, but I hope that the cabinet secretary in closing might address those directly. More importantly, the Scottish Government will proactively engage with those who hold them in order that we secure support for and confidence in future governance of the sector. New Woodland, in the correct location with the appropriate species, planted well is not only good for the environment but also vital to the economy. It is widely recognised that, by 2035, we will not be producing enough timber to satisfy the needs of our timber processors, processors that our cabinet secretary and I know well, such as Gordon's in Nairn, Norwell by Inverness and James Jones in Mr Stodlock. There are suggestions that the industry can offset that by smoothing, which effectively means reducing harvesting in the lead-up and post-critical period. However, that is effectively putting the handbrake on our industry, and it is not something that I would naturally ever encourage. However, with a long lead time in timber production, I see little option at this stage. So why has this come about? A simple answer is that the Government has failed to reach the planting targets that they set themselves, a deficit that has been repeated every year since 2012. Before anyone says that even if we had reached those targets, with forest taking in some case 60 years to mature, we still would not have had enough timber, they would be wrong. Forestry starts producing from around the 18-year point, and although those would not be substantial saw logs, it would be timber that we could use. So how far are we behind the planting targets? On the basis of the targets announced in 2012, with 100,000 hectares by 2020, we needed to plant 10,000 hectares per annum. As we entered 2017, we are considerably behind that target. Industry is telling us that we need to plant, to make up the shortfall, we will need to plant 13,000 hectares per year up until 2022, if we are to reach the Government's target. Latest indications from the Government suggest that they will be happy for 10,000 hectares per annum, but there is no clear evidence that this is likely. Indeed, it seems very unlikely given the evidence that I have looked at. I want to look at the reasons for failure and what we could perhaps do. There are two areas that I want to look at, first of all, grants and then the consultation process. Analysis of previous applications suggests that costs of establishment for forestry grants need to be in the region of £4,500 per hectare. Simple maths would suggest to achieve a target of 13,000 hectares per annum. The budget should be in the region of £59 million. Or, if the new target of 10,000 hectares per annum is accepted, it will need to be £45 million. The fact is that in the 2017 and 2018 budget for planting, the figure set aside is £40 million. I have heard arguments that the budget has been set on the basis of what the forestry commission sees as coming forward in the way of forestry grants. Of course, that is a circular argument. If potential applicants cannot see sufficient grant funding, they will not bother to apply. Why? Simply because the whole application process is long, tortuous and expensive, and if you do not have a reasonable chance of success, why indeed would you bother? Now, on the consultation process, I would like to say at the outset that I broadly welcome the report by Jim McKinnon. There are some bits that I do not agree with and perhaps I could discuss those further with the cabinet secretary at another time, but whilst he is still abiding by his 2017 resolution. I speak from bitter experience when I say that the consultation process can be soul destroying. There are some that I have been involved in, one in particular, which aimed at creating 1,000 hectares of new Caledonian pine forest in the cangorms that I still bear the scars from. Whilst I accept the need to protect the environment, that particular scheme seems to tick all the boxes. It still took 10 years to be approved, and I really cannot remember how many site meetings and consultation reports that were required. No wonder that forestry does not get planted. I believe that the Government, with all the other agencies who rightly have a say, needs to identify areas where we should see forestry planting. They should then produce maps showing whether there is a presumption in favour of forestry. They then should instruct the Forestry Commission Conservatives to follow that map and support them in the decisions that they make regarding the applications. In summary, I am truly concerned about the timber supply, and it will not meet the demands of our industry, especially when we reach 2035. I support the Government's original planting ambitions, and I am disappointed that we have failed to achieve them. It is clear to me also that the Government has not allowed sufficient grant support to achieve their damly adjusted new targets. I support what Jim McKinnon says in his report, but I want to look more closely on the way forward in relation to the Forestry Commission and the use of certified agents. I believe that the Government must look at making the whole application process a lot easier, with the presumption in specific areas for forestry planting to speed up the process. Sadly, I believe that, if those issues are not addressed, then I have serious concerns that Scotland's forestry will be held back. The knock-on effect is that it will be bad for the environment, bad for the industries, and especially the industries in my region and the cabinet secretary's constituency, where they are so important not only to provide employment but also skills and training for people in the forestry sector. Richard Lyle, followed by Mike Rumbles. Can I begin this afternoon by welcoming the opportunity to speak in this important debate on the forestry sector in Scotland, particularly as a member of the Parliament's Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. In my remarks this afternoon, I will intend to echo much of what has been said by my colleagues—maybe not Mr Mountain, but in particular, I wish to reiterate how valuable the forestry sector is to Scotland and the actions that the Scottish Government will take to showcase just how much we value the sector. Scotland's forests and woodlands are one of their greatest and, indeed, our most valuable rural assets, with the sector being worth £1 billion per annum, supporting approximately 25,000 jobs. It is clear that the forestry sector is one that has the potential to continue to grow—I know that that is a pun—and to grow from strength to strength. I believe that it is our ambition in the SNP for it to expand and flourish to continue to support employment and growth for Scotland's rural economy. Indeed, it is incredibly important to remember that the forestry sector does not just do well for Scotland's economy, but it plays a hugely important role in tackling climate change, protecting and growing biodiversity, natural floods management and, of course, contributes to the improvement of general health and wellbeing across Scotland. In short, it is a sector that contributes so much more than money to our nation. That is why I am sure that the SNP Government is determined to reduce the complexity, duration and cost of tree planting applications. As members will be aware, I have commissioned a report by Jim McKinnon CBE. The report made a number of recommendations, which I know that the cabinet secretary has accepted in principle. However, this Government went further from that report. The First Minister outlined in her programme for government a commitment to announce actions to speed up and streamline approved procedures for sustainable planting schemes. The Scottish Government is exploring the options that are open to stimulating increased planting. I know that it has plans to announce actions later in the year to speed up the process of planting, particularly for those sustainable schemes. It is important to note that the success of the industry lies with the relationship that it has developed between our committed cabinet secretary and the industry. Indeed, I note that Stewart Goodall, chief executive of confor, has said that Scotland is planting on average over 15 million trees a year. I know that the cabinet secretary is working with the sector in a determined drive to plant more. There is an understanding of the benefits and the real political will to tackle the barriers to greater tree planting. I think that that is a welcome reflection by Mr Goodall, as it shows that this Government is not only working to fulfil its commitments, but it is fostering a relationship with the sector that will see it go from strength to strength. I highlighted earlier in my remarks the benefits of the Forestry Commission to climate change and it is on that point that I was to reflect. Because we live in a world at the moment where climate change is being questioned by some across the world, or maybe just across the Atlantic, but climate change is a very real issue indeed. We have a proud record of our work to tackle climate change. Our First Minister represented us at the United Nations Global Climate Change Summit in France not so long ago, and our continual punching above our weight and our efforts to tackle this important issue are well noted. Our plans are outlined in the draft climate change plan, sure that we are not resting on our laurels, but working hard to make that change we must see. That is why, by 2032, we must have the ambition that Scotland's woodland cover will go from around 18 to 21 per cent of the Scottish land area. This is important because those new woodlands will absorb greenhouse gases, provide confidence for the forestry product industry to continue to invest in Scotland, which means more development and job creation. Of course, our commitment, words and ambitions are met with the practical support, too. That is why I believe that the cabinet secretary for finance outlined that his draft budget increases to the funding available for tree planting schemes from £30 million to £60 million, as well as our commitment to the lover for woodland creation and improvement through the forestry grant scheme. Now, although I am sure that members will wish that we get through the debate without mentioning that dreaded word called Brexit, I have to gently point out that the forestry sector receives significant funds from the EU funding, namely the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. That fund reimburses 55 per cent of the forestry grant scheme and its value over 2014-2020. The period is estimated to make available £52 million. The final point that I wish to make is that the forestry bill is coming. The SNP Government will not introduce a forestry bill, which I believe will deliver a commitment to keeping the forestry commission as an asset for the country, but to ensure that the Scottish Government, rightly, has control of all aspects of forestry, and we will have arrangements on how it is governed and supported, and that will help us to deliver on our overall ambitions for the sector. To conclude, I am once again grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate, I look forward to continuing to support with pleasure the SNP Government and an excellent Cabinet Secretary, who has delivered on its manifesto commitments to ensure the best possible future for the forestry sector in Scotland. I call Mike Rumbles to be followed by Alexander Burnett. I am not after a job, but there we are. Can I first of all say that the Liberal Democrats fully recognised the contribution that Scotland's woods and forests makes to our people, communities, economy and environment? We welcome moves to fully devolve forestry in Scotland so that it is fully accountable to the Scottish Parliament. We are also fully supportive of the Scottish Government's plans to increase the annual target, as the Conservatives mentioned, from 10,000 hectares a year to 15,000 hectares. However, if we are to be successful in meeting this new target, the resources to achieve it have to be in place. While I recognise that the Scottish Government is increasing the annual level of funding for specific grant aid from its current level of £30 million a year, it is only increasing it by £4 million to £34 million in next year's budget. We took evidence on this in the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee. Stuart Goodall from Confor said, I quote, it is quite clear that if the forestry commission is going to deliver the objectives that the Scottish Government has set, the budget will be insufficient. The inability to meet planting targets due to lack of funds was also received in written evidence. It was said that, whilst demand in the application process for this current financial year may well exceed 10,000 hectares for the very first time, funding may not be sufficient to meet that demand. That demand is at 10,000 hectares, not 15,000. I was at first very skeptical to say the least that having failed to reach the 10,000 hectares of new planting target since the target was established five years ago. Simply changing the target of 15,000 hectares per year did not seem good enough to me. I thought that Edward Mountain's contribution to this debate from his personal experience was a valuable insight into the problems that people face. It is important that we have people with experience in farming and managing the land in the Parliament in these debates. However, in discussion with the cabinet secretary, I have to say that he has made it clear that there will be a stepped approach to achieving the new target. The aim is to raise this target to 12,000 hectares in 2020-22 to 14,000 in 2022-24 and 15,000 hectares by 2025. This approach is, to me, far more achievable. Informing the spokespeople of all the parties in the chamber of this change is a helpful and constructive approach to the whole subject. Joe Harra from Forestry Commission Scotland has made it clear that past problems have been addressed. She states that, in 2017-18, she is aware of over 11,000 hectares of schemes that are under preparation for planting and is confident that there will be at least 9,000 hectares of new woodland created. The McKinnon report, which has been referred, has identified a number of mechanisms to streamline the approval process. Delivery of these mechanisms is a priority, and it must be a priority for the Forestry Commission, and we are being told that this has led to an increase in investor confidence. We hope that this is indeed the case. It is clear that, as the target for new woodland increases over the next few years, the planting budget must increase with it, but that, of course, is for future Scottish Government budgets. We will have to see if the Scottish Government gets its budget for next year approved in the vote in this chamber a week on Thursday. I have my doubts whether it will pass next week. I personally do not think that it will, so I am not going to look too far ahead to the budgets to come. In conclusion, the Scottish Liberal Democrats will be supporting the Conservative and Labour amendments. Indeed, it is quite good of the Scottish Government to be accepting the Conservative amendment, since it takes quite a chunk out of the Government's motion. That is a very positive step by the minister to have accepted that, so we will be voting for the Conservative and Labour amendments. We will be supporting the Government's motion today, with its modest budget increase for forestry, even if next week we may be voting against the budget as a whole. He threw me there a bit, Mr Rumbles. Alex Hunter Brown out, followed by Colin Smith. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Before I start, I would like to note my registered interest regarding forestry and biomass heating. The forestry sector has long been the backbone of our rural economy, and those forests provide jobs and income for many all over Scotland. With such a key role to play in Scotland, you would think that it would be a priority of the Scottish Government to make sure that we have enough skilled professionals to keep the sector alive. However, time and again, the Scottish Government has failed to train up the next generation, and we now face an ever-widening gap between the demand and supply of skilled labour, which is totally unacceptable. I am not a lone voice in this respect. In one of the responses to the Scottish Government's future in forestry consultation, Aberdeenshire Council laid it bare. It stated that the Scottish Government should not be following the path in which it under-represent the commercial and economic impact of forestry. In the same consultation, those stakeholders, who truly know the sector, talk of an increasingly centralisation of policy. Unfortunately, at the risk of a forestry ramble with Mr Stevenson. I wonder if the member can tell us the number of forestry students at Aberdeen University in 1970 and in 1974 when the Tories left power. I just give a hint. They halved. Alex Hender-Brunan. I cannot comment on his contemporaries, which I am sure that he was referring to. However, we will be talking about how many forestry students there are in Scotland in the current day, which I think is more important. Unfortunately, forestry is just the latest addition to the central Government grab, where it is policing education, fire services, council funding, health boards, the Highlands and Islands Enterprise and now forestry. It is no wonder that we have an ever-widening gap between activity on the ground and those who make the decisions. It is no wonder that we have a central Government that cannot hear the need for more skills and labour. It is no wonder that we have a forestry sector increasingly in despair over how they will lose forestry expertise into a morph of bureaucracy covering all land issues, the jack of all trades but master of none. It is no good further centralising forestry management, and such a solution has led us to the chronic problem that we have today. So it will come as no surprise to the cabinet secretary that Scottish students enrolling in forestry at university has now decreased by a staggering 43 per cent since 2003. The number of students studying forestry at the University of Edinburgh is now near zero while Aberdeen University has had to merge its once-renowned forestry department. The lack of interest is of no surprise when the route of being a forestry expert or chartered forester in a stand-alone forestry commission is to disappear. We need to take a proactive approach to getting the next generation excited in Scotland's forests and nobody knows how to do this better than local communities and, dare I say it, businesses operating in the forestry sector. That is why regularly tours are organised by local schools to visit my biomass facility in Bancary, and I know I'd disappoint Miss Martin if I didn't mention an interest in mine. Now, Aberdeen and Bancary Academy students are taken round the facility and have to find answers relating to their fuel topics in the curriculum, and pupils and teachers leave with a much greater understanding of the workings and economics of biomass and the timber supply operations. Now, I cannot guarantee that these children will go into the forestry sector, but they will now have an understanding of what the sector can offer them. If, however, this Parliament wants to represent all of Scotland, then it needs to listen to those who make our economy function. We hear stories from forestry companies of having to go to other sectors persuading their employees to retrain, so how do we get to the state of affairs? The fact of the matter is that the Scottish Government should have been planning for this. This is not some flash-in-the-pan issue. This is a subject in a sector that can plan by the decade, and this Government has had nearly a decade of failing to understand it. It knew that we had a massive skills gap, and it chose to ignore it. So I ask the cabinet secretary why not break the habit of a lifetime and listen to our forestry experts. Colin Smyth, followed by Gillian Martin. I refer members to my register of interests as a local councillor in Dumfries and Galloway. I am sure that members will forgive me if I am somewhat pro-kill on my contribution in today's debate, but my home region of Dumfries and Galloway has one of the highest concentrations of forestry in the UK, with 31 per cent of the land covered with woods and forest, exceeding the Scottish average of 18 per cent referred to by the cabinet secretary earlier. The 211,000 hectares range from the great spruce forest of Galloway and Estill, mured through the traditional estate forests, such as those of the Buclew states to the small native and far woodlands that are so important to the beautiful landscape of the region. Not surprisingly, Dumfries and Galloway is a major timber producing area, harvesting some 30 per cent of Scotland's home-grown timber annually. As a result, it is home to some of the top sawmills in Britain, such as BSW in Dalbyty and James Jones and Sons near Lockerby, as well as a number of smaller mills all processing local timber. The region is also home to Scotland's largest biomass power station near Lockerby, which burns around 475,000 tonnes of wood per year, displacing up to 140,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases. We have many local engineering companies that design and build forestry in timber, transport machinery, support in the industry locally and sell on equipment across the world. We have some of the largest forestry plant and equipment suppliers in the UK. Unlike many other parts of Scotland, the majority of the timber growing in Dumfries and Galloway is processed within the area, reducing our carbon emissions, supporting our low-carbon economy and crucially retaining and creating badly needed local employment. The timber industry is unquestedly one of the most important employers in the region, with more than 3,000 jobs across all sectors, many within some of the most remote rural areas. With timber production continuing to increase post-war forest reach maturity, there is a potential for more employment opportunities and growth, which is almost unique for industries in a rural economy. However, with those growth opportunities, a number of challenges have also come, which I want to touch on briefly. The first challenge, of course, is ensuring that there is sufficient planting to support the expansion of the industry. We know that we have a relatively healthy timber supply until the late 2030s, but then there is a projected drop-off. That is why we very much support the Government's new target to plant 15,000 hectares of new forestry each year by 2025. However, the reality is that the Government has no choice but to expand beyond its original 10,000 hectares annual target if it is to meet the aim of 100,000 hectares of planting by 2022, because past targets have, as the cabinet secretary readily acknowledges, been missed in the past. A lack of local or regional targets in the national strategy and a past forestry grant scheme that was seen as slow and bureaucratic has resulted in those targets being missed. The sudden rise also of onshore wind farm developments in recent years in many areas also led to a loss of existing and proposed woodland. A great deal of work needs to be done to deliver on the Government's targets. I very much welcome the McKinnon report, which offers a number of very positive and sensible ways forward to remove the barriers to planting. Of course, we do not just need to plant and grow the trees, we need to harvest them and remove them. That is the next challenge that I want to touch on. The minor road network in many regions such as Dumfries and Galloway, which is so important to the transfer of timber, has not changed a great deal over the years, and the capacity to take timber haulage can be very limiting. There are many narrow and structurally weak roads locally that are incredibly challenging for articulated vehicles, and any increase in heavy traffic on minor roads can lead to disruption for many local communities. Those rural roads that server forests remain at a potential barrier to the supply chain and future increased planting. That is why the strategic timber transport fund in Scotland has been vital since it was established over a decade ago, distributing some £25 million to 119 projects throughout Scotland, with a total value of some £55 million. I can think of many projects across Dumfries and Galloway, such as the Estillmure bypass that have benefited from that fund. I hope that the Government will continue the fund, but I also urge the cabinet secretary to look at the level of intervention. At present, projects are generally supported to a maximum of 50 per cent of eligible costs, with local government or private industry having to meet the remaining 50 per cent. Given the current pressures on council budgets, I hope that the Government will consider at least anodd 80 per cent intervention level or, in some exceptional cases, full funding. 80 per cent is already the level of intervention when it comes to projects that have exceptional environmental, community and social benefits, and is a level that the Government provides for major flood prevention schemes. Increasing the intervention level of the fund at a time when councils are facing cuts is more likely to ensure that bids come forward and that the fund is fully utilised. The final challenge that I want to touch on is the completion of the devolution of forestry. I accept that incorporating the management of the forestry estate into the Scottish Government provides a framework for an integrated land management unit, allowing for a more holistic overview of the management of the forest estate. However, the current forestry model provides a great deal of engagement at local level with stakeholders from communities to local authorities on the management of the estate. In Dumfries and Galloway, the estate is currently governed by two forest districts, Galloway district and Dumfries and Borders district, which, between them, cover some 171,000 hectares. The current arrangements, in addition to the production role, have played a crucial part in developing the wider health and recreational benefits of forests in Dumfries and Galloway from the development of the Seven Steins cycling project to the Scottish Darts guys observatory within Galloway forest park, a park that attracts some 1.1 million visitors a year. Indeed, it is so successful that, in my view, the next logical step to develop the park into Scotland's next national park. I, like the cabinet secretary, wonder a little off the script. However, given the positive role of local forest districts and their outreach functions, it is crucial that they are reflected in any new management proposals. We need to guard against either an overly centralised structure, which, sadly, is often the case when it comes to structural change. We have to ensure that the focus of any new structure is not only on timber production, crucial though that is, but also recognises the wider role of forestry estate in supporting local biodiversity targets, health and recreation, and tourism that is so vital to our region like Dumfries and Galloway. The last of the open speakers is Gillian Martin. I welcome this motion and I agree that forestry has a crucial role to play in achieving Scotland's climate targets. I declare a special interest as the species champion for the EU, which is thought to be Scotland's oldest tree in the form of the famous Fortingall EU in Persia. I would first like to pay tribute to the work of Woodland Trust Scotland. The trust owns and manages over 60 sites across over 11,000 hectares in Scotland, including Den Wood near Old Meldrum, in my constituency, where I met some of their representatives to discuss the work that they do. While it is important that we continue to plant more trees and do everything that we can to meet the Scottish Government's ambitious targets, it is also essential that we do our utmost to protect and conserve our existing forests in Woodlands. As well as providing a number of walks in the habitat for wildlife, including buzzards and road here, Den Wood is used by a local group called Gardening for Kids. The group runs outdoor classes based on forest school principles and is extremely valuable in teaching youngsters from our local schools about the environment. As any pedagog will tell you, outdoor education is invaluable and a cursory look at the top performing Finnish schools and how much time they spend in Woodland classrooms is surely an indication of its value. Woodlands, like Den Wood, are an important educational resource and they provide an illustration of the development of forestry in the 21st century and show it to be much more than just the management of timber supply. By working with children's groups like this, we help them to understand how important forests and forestry are to our society. Yesterday, I visited Fintry school near Turref, who were awarded their fourth green flag. They know the importance of tree planting. The cabinet secretary will be delighted to hear that they have done their bit in helping us to reach our target. They planted 60 trees last year in the school grounds. As well as its economic, educational and wider environmental importance, forestry can also play a significant part in the nation's flood prevention strategy. My constituency of Aberdeenshire East was one of the areas that was heavily affected by Storm Frank last year, with residents in Inverury, Ellen, Methlic, Fivy and Rossie Norman among those impacted by the floods at that time. Even before Storm Frank hit last January, the average cost of flooding in Scotland was estimated in 2015 to be £280 million per year. Of course, the psychological and emotional cost, as many of my constituents know, is significant and cannot be measured. Bodies such as Confer, the Woodland Trust and the World Wildlife Fund have all proposed that the strategic tree planting be made a key component of efforts to mitigate against flooding. Indeed, the SNP manifesto supports the planting of woodland, which can help to prevent flooding and assist in water-based management. Work is on-going to develop strategies for the dawn, ywri and ithan rivers in my constituency to prevent and or mitigate any future floods, and this process can feel frustratingly drawn out to residents whose lives have been upended by the recent floods. However, it is essential that we do not make things worse in our haste to make things better. It is vital that all avenues are explored, ensuring that the devastation in the wake of Storm Frank is not repeated. In addition to conventional prevention techniques and as part of an anti-flooding strategy, tree planting could play a significant role. The Scottish Government noted in 2011 that the state of knowledge regarding the effectiveness of natural techniques, such as tree planting and flood prevention, was evolving, but there is still much research to be done in that area. However, in a study that was published in March last year, led by the universities of Birmingham and Southampton, scientists found that planting trees could reduce the height of flooding—the height of floodwaters in towns—by up to 20 per cent. Dr Simon Dixon, the study's lead author from the University of Birmingham's Institute of Forestry's research, said that we believe that tree planting can make a big contribution to reducing flood risk and should be part of a wider flood risk management approach, including conventional flood defences. An example of where tree planting has been employed as part of a flood mitigation strategy is in the previously flood-hit town of Pickering in North Yorkshire, where over 40 hectares of woodland were planted. A study of that scheme indicated that flooding was prevented that would otherwise have occurred. Although tree planting was only one part of the whole range of measures implemented, it was a significant part. I suggest in closing that our tree planting scheme could assist in the Scottish Government's aim to deliver on its manifesto commitment not only to meeting its climate change targets, but to aid the prevention of flooding—moves that many of my constituents would be very supportive of. We now come to closing speeches. I call Andy Wightman to wind up for the Green Party. I thank all those who contributed to the debate this afternoon. I repeat the comments that I made in my opening remarks in response to the cabinet secretary's speech. We look forward to discussing further our ideas for the new forestry bill. We certainly, as an overarching aim, want this bill to be much more ambitious. I cite another example here. If we want to get forestry expansion, I do not think that we can rely on traditional, so-called investment routes. There is no reason why, for example, we should not be launching a national people's forest, which is crowdfunded by the people of Scotland. There is money for people to invest in forests, and we need to tap into those non-traditional routes. Peter Chapman mentioned the fact that forestry is a long-term business, and I think that we would all agree with that. He also talked about the fact that there is very little history of farmers doing forestry. I am sure that Peter Chapman is well aware that that is because of the lack of land reform in Scotland. Most of the land in Scotland was managed by tenant farmers, and it was not until this Parliament in 2003 gave tenant farmers the right to plant trees, and even then it was a constrained right. It was land reform across Europe that led to the pattern of small-scale farm forestry that we see in countries such as Austria and France. Alas, we will be supporting the Conservative amendment this evening. Rhoda Grant talked about the importance of getting timber to market, and we agree. Too often, in our view, timber is taken to markets far too far away. In 2012, I will remember the previous cabinet secretary, the environment minister, Peter Wheelhouse, who launched a £3 million pier built on the island of Mull. That was to take timber away from Mull to distant markets. We do not agree that that is a good use of public money. We think that the forest economy of Mull should be developed on Mull. As other European countries do, for example, a number of years ago, I visited a commune in Norway, which was a very similar size to Mull and had a very similar forest cover. It has two sawmills on the island, and it also has a very large prefabricated timber house building project. It exports high-value products, and that is what places like Mull should do. No minister in Norway would stand up and be proud of spending £3 million to export raw materials from the Norwegian countryside. Emma Harper talked about the importance of investors and Scotland being open for business, but who are those investors? I despair at her lack of curiosity. I could sit down with her and talk about the people who own the forests in Dumfries and Galloway. Many of them absentees, many in offshore tax havens, and there is one Russian oligarch. Those large areas of forestry plantations are surrounded by lock gates, and there is no community benefit. Finlay Carson and Alexander Burnett also talked about the tendency of the Scottish Government to centralise things. That is a sentiment that I share in many instances, but I do not understand the critique in this instance. The national forest estate is owned by Scottish ministers, which is where it is centralised as you can get, and forest enterprise is accountable to Scottish ministers. In fact, the proposals that the Scottish Government has for forestry in its proposed bill make very little difference. I hope that if the Conservatives are as critical of the tendency to centralise things as I am, they will join with Greens in supporting our amendment and trying to get more decentralisation of forest management and ownership across Scotland. Stuart Stevenson has talked about strategic interests again, and I agree. That is why, historically, there has been cross-party support for forestry expansion in this Parliament. Claudia Beamish talked about more community and co-operative ownership, and I very much endorse that. She talked about the initiatives that are taking place in the south of Scotland, which Colin Smyth referred to, as well as biomass and local approaches. That underscores the need for a local approach. It always underscores the need for a local approach. In countries such as France, 30 per cent of the public forest is not owned by the state, but by the local communes. That is why places in many of those forest communes are very wealthy. They own the land, the trees and they can develop a local economy. Edward Mountain talked about indicative forestry maps. We had them in the 1980s, indeed. I am sure that he will, in response to the controversy over planting in places like the flow country. We now have the land use strategy, and that has the potential to build indicative maps. Once areas are identified where we should be expanding forest, I think that it is time, given our climate change obligations, that planting should be obligatory. I think that the voluntary approach has failed. That would include very vulnerable land, land such as the hillsides above the A83, and the rest would be thankful. If Scotland were a normal European country, such as Switzerland or Austria, it would be protection forest. It would be illegal. It would be illegal. There would be a criminal sanction against any owner or manager who grazed those hills as they are just now. Gillian Martin mentioned importance in the context of flooding. She also mentioned the importance of forestry in children. Across Europe, family forestry is widespread, and it is also vertically integrated, so that the 54,000 forest owners in the south of Sweden, for example, own the processing company to which their timber is sold. I conclude by repeating our view that a new forestry act has massive opportunities. The Government's existing goals in the new bill are limited, though welcome. We look forward to further discussions with the Government on how to make the forestry bill suitable for the 21st century. That has been a really good debate, with a lot of consensus. The acknowledgement that the value that forestry provides—indeed, the debate has shown the breadth of value that it provides from climate change, biodiversity and, indeed, economic and community wellbeing. Those points have been well made. Turning first to the environment, which I probably did not touch on much in my opening speech, Claudia Beamish and Graham Day talked about carbon sequestration and the use of wood and forestry for that. That is something that we almost take for granted. However, there are stages in how we should use timber to get the best carbon sequestration. Looking at high-end uses to start with building furniture and the like, then recycling that when need be into processing and then finally into heat. If we could build that into our plan for forestry, I think that we would make the best use of our woodlands. It is nice to say that, depending on the needs for things like biomass, it is always better to grow that very close to where it is going to be used. We need to look at our natural hardwoods. I know that others might disagree, but some of the natural hardwoods that we have planted were never really managed properly, and they need to be properly managed to get the maximum use out of them. Claudia Beamish talked about deer management. That is really important, because if we are going to have good quality forestry, we need to make sure that that is not grazed when the trees are young, especially by deer and sheep and cattle as well. Claudia Beamish talked about peatlands and sometimes the conflict between protecting peatlands and forestry, and we need to be very clear on that. That is why we need a plan about how we take forward our forestry to make sure that it does not interfere with other things that are good for the environment and that we maximise the impact of it. Richard Lyle and Gillian Martin talked about flood management and prevention through forestry. That is another issue that we touched on very little, although I certainly did in my opening speech. I turn again to the Green amendment. I am still not totally clear as to what it is trying to do with its amendment. Of course, the forestry commission and all of government should encourage community ownership. When land ownership is in the public domain, they should look at how they can work with communities and others to manage that, and transfer ownership where community ownership is right. We would expect that to be in place for the forestry commission, but we would expect that to be in place for other government and local government organisations. Although NGOs tend to be more sympathetic landowners towards community needs and that they are still landowners, they can buy and trade their forestry on the open market, so I would not want them to be treated the same as community landowners. Therefore, my concern about the Green amendment remains and where it is going. I think that we are sympathetic to some of the direction of travel, but it is not very clear if there are unforeseen circumstances. Indeed, forestry could then end up in private ownership, and that would not be something that we would want, but something that the Greens would not want either. Can I turn to transport? Stuart Stevenson talked about marine transportation and, of course, I mean, I had the pleasure of being in Rassie yesterday. It was a beautiful day. I did not see timber being extracted by boat, but I am sure that it is there, and certainly the pier looked like it was more than up to cope with that. I think that we need to look at those methods of timber extraction, because it is very short. Stuart Stevenson? It is not a pier. There is a special vessel that goes on at the beach and creates a temporary pier. Even better, it can be used elsewhere. Colin Smyth talked about narrow and weak roads in rural areas, and I think that he is absolutely right. He made a plea about the strategic timber transport fund, and I think that funds like that help local communities and local government to put in place methods of timber extraction. I very much hope that the Government will look at what he said constructively and see how it can help to promote the scheme with local government and indeed others. I absolutely agree with Andy Wightman when he talked about transportation of timber. Yes, of course, where possible we should have timber grown close to where it is being used, but if we are going to use it properly, that is not always possible, because some of the needs for timber are within our urban areas, where is the best land for growing timber is often in our rural areas. We talked about planting, and I think that there was great agreement that we needed a lot more planting, and that should be encouraged. Maybe the funding that follows planting could also dictate where that planting happens, so that it happens in the best possible areas. Alexander Burnett talked about skills, and of course we need to ensure that we have the right skills in place. We also need to address the gender gap in the forestry and encouraging women to become involved. It is a perfect career path for women, and we need to make sure that they find that accessible as well. It has been a good debate, and I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to listen at the debate. Indeed, as the bill goes forward through the Parliament, I look forward to many more discussions about forestry and how we can make that bill work for all of Scotland. I will call Maurice Golden to wind up for the Conservative party. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Along with the majestic mountains, cragged coasts and rolling hills, forests are one of the iconic images of Scotland's natural beauty. Not only are they rich by a diverse habitats, they act as a huge carbon sink, provide us with the raw materials and help to support 25,000 jobs, as well as contribute £1 billion to our economy. Truly, our forests are something to be cherished. This was a point well made by Finlay Carson, who flagged how important the sector is to his constituency, as did Colin Smith. Andy Wightman revealed that he was blacklisted by the forestry sector, but he also mentioned the lack of ambition from the Scottish Government and a promotion of forest communes. Unfortunately, we do not agree with those points, but we can all agree on the need for more planting of trees. Stuart Stevenson spoke about making the case to farmers of the intrinsic value of forestry, and Claudia Beamish outlined the French model, an agro forestry approach, in an interesting contribution. Graham Day highlighted the issue of deer management and the cost to the public purse of fencing—all worthwhile contributions to this debate. We acknowledge that the SNP Government recognised the value of forestry, as can be seen in its plans to expand the area of forestry in Scotland. Anyone who cares about our environment and our economy would, of course, welcome such an expansion. In last week's draft climate change plan, the SNP Government announced that it would increase the current target for woodland creation by 50 per cent to plant 50,000 hectares of woodland per year. Mike Rumbles made the point that, given that the SNP Government has not actually made the current target yet, how can this Parliament be assured that it will deliver an even bigger target? The SNP Government also said that it would plant 100 million trees by the end of 2015. It missed that target by more than 11 million trees, and Edward Mountain flagged the issue of the lack of funding in this area. However, Fergus Ewing has sought to assure this Parliament that I respect that. I also welcome Fergus Ewing's commitment to work across the chamber for the benefit of Scotland and to continue to meet his new year's resolution on that approach. However, we see in action when it comes to the impact of invasive rhododendrum on Scottish woodlands, despite being described by one ecologist as the biggest ecological threat facing Scotland, barely more than a one-tenth of rhododendrum spread has been removed over the past five years. I urge the SNP Government to tackle this problem rather than leave it to landowners alone. We have a number of concerns about the SNP Government's proposed organisational arrangements for the Forestry Commission. The proposals could lead to the type of centralisation and political interference that may underline the goals that we all share—a point made by Peter Chapman and Alexander Burnett. Furthermore, Rhoda Grant raised concerns of career civil servants running our forestry sector—a point that we would also agree with. On the other hand, there are occasions where central leadership is required. The bio-refinery road map for Scotland was also launched in January 2015, to much fanfare and quite right to, because this sector is in dire need of leadership. Overall, that means a more active role for government, not stepping back but stepping up, to back business and ensure more people in all corners of this country share in the benefits of its success. That approach is similar to the modern industrial strategy that was recently launched by the UK Government, which will make Britain and Scotland, with Scottish Government support, stronger, fairer and more successful than it is today. Bio-refining means the integrated production of materials, chemicals, fuels and energy from biomass. Timber value chain co-products such as tree stumps, brash and thinnings, as well as residues, could provide a valuable feedstock for a bio-refinery. The first stage of feedstock analysis has been beset with delays, but with 2017, the year that outlined in the road map for feasibility studies on the three main feedstocks falling on from technical appraisals, in order to build a compelling case for a bio-refinery construction in Scotland, it is not too late for the road map. I would urge the cabinet secretary to ensure that this road map is delivered on time. Forestry represents a massive opportunity to deliver positive economic and environmental impacts for Scotland. Scottish Forestry needs a government that will show leadership and recognise what we can do better. A government that supports stakeholders, not one that walks away from problems and, most of all, a Government that puts results before rhetoric. I urge the chamber to support the amendment in the name of Peter Chapman. Thank you very much, and I call on the cabinet secretary, Fergus Ewing, to wind up the debate. Well, Presiding Officer, I think that this has been an excellent debate and, if I may say so, Mr Golden finished the debate, concluded the debate in the constructive and positive fashion with which most of the contributors addressed it. I am very grateful to all of the members for their contribution. I think that the wider community of people who are interested in forestry either as a livelihood, a passion, a hobby will feel that this debate has provided a lot of support for their respective aims and visions of what they wish from forestry in Scotland. I want to try to address many of the points that have been made in the debate. Should I fail to do so and it is impossible to address all in eight minutes, then, if members are particularly keen that I do that, please write to me. I repeat the offer that I made exclusively to the Greens that, if members wish to meet me and discuss those matters as we go forward, particularly with the forestry bill, my door is open and I am keen to have discussions so that we can iron out potential areas of disagreement, as Mr Rumbles kindly mentioned in his remarks. I think that, very often, a bit of prior discussion enables us so to do and exchanges in the committee serve that purpose, as Mr Mountain indicated. I think that there is a very important role for regional policy, as one of the Conservative members mentioned in his speech. I cannot remember which one, but we strongly believe that there should be a regional approach and the Scottish Local Authorities Publication, Forest and Woodland strategies are used to identify suitable areas of woodland expansion. It is not for me to determine where those areas are. That would be inappropriately centralist. It is for those locally elected councillors working with their communities and community councillors to do so. The Scottish Government believes that local authorities should play that important role. It is essential that we have a partnership with local authorities, and that is how I seek to deal with them in my areas of responsibility. Mr Smith mentioned the woodland loss and compensatory planting issue. That is an issue, but a very small part, according to the information that I have and a report published just last year, is attributable to the woodland loss through renewable schemes—0.12 per cent of the total forestry area. We welcome, of course, the compensatory planting that is required by local authorities of developers as a way to plant more trees, something that this debate has focused on. The timber transport issue is very important, and that was mentioned by all the Labour speakers today in Rhoda Grant. The budget continues to support the timber transport scheme, which has provided nearly £25 million since 2005 to 134 projects. Of course, we want to work effectively with local government in order to maximise what we can do. Many speakers mentioned the importance of business. In my constituency, in fact, we live less than a kilometre away from BSW's Boat of Garton mill, which I revisited again recently. Those are mills like that, which were mentioned by Mr Mountain, Gordon and Jones. Those are at the root of rural life and work in many parts of Scotland, in the Highlands and Islands and in the borders in Freeson and Galloway, as has been mentioned by many speakers, including Emma Harper. The industry has pointed out that long-term forecasts for softwood production show a peak in the 2030s, followed by a trough. The trough is now in the timeframe for long-term loans, so the processing industry is concerned about the availability of future investment funding. That is one of many reasons why we need to up our game in what Mr Rumble has rightly characterised in his contribution as a stepped increase. It can only be a stepped increase because capacity cannot go from to double overnight in a year. Nurseries take some time to increase their stock, as I learned when I visited Christie's elite not so long ago, and the contractor capacity to do the work. In many market workers from the EU, who we hope will still be welcome in Scotland, is another factor why we cannot go from here to 15,000 straight away. I was pleased that members recognised that, as the information that Joe O'Hara provided, we are making progress at their anent. Many members talked about the devolution of forestry, and I was pleased for the broad and principled support. Let me absolutely emphasise that, in completing devolution, we want to ensure a number of things. First, we will work with the UK in respect of disease and research, and that assurance was sought. It is freely given. Of course we will continue to do that. Secondly, will it be accountable? Yes, of course. Our actions will be accountable to this Parliament, both to the committees and to individual members in their work. I think that it will bring a greater accountability. Thirdly, will it bring in a new era of centralism where I would play the role of the centralist-in-chief? I have to say that I miscast for the role of a Scottish Strelnikov. I do not really see myself in that light, nor do I tend to apply for the part. We will work in partnership with local authorities and communities, because that is the correct way to do it. We are already engaging with industry. I have held two summits that I have met with NGOs. We will meet with NGOs once again very shortly. We are analysing the consultation responses, and those will be published in February, and we are committed to introducing the bill in this session, in accordance with our manifesto pledge. I recognise that we have not planted enough trees, and to do so we need a variety of things. One of the most Mr Burnett rightly said the skills. I am very pleased that the Forestry Commission is led by example, where 98 apprentices have gained employment with the Forestry Commission, and their graduate development programme has employed 15 graduates since 2007. The Forestry College at Baloch does a great job in my constituency, and we will continue to do so. However, he is right to raise the issue, because working together we have to do more, and we want to encourage more young people to pursue what I think will be a terrific career for many people. Let me mention the excellent work that Jim McKinnon carried out after being asked so to do by me in last summer. He visited a huge number of people. He gave freely of his time to a great extent. He produced a very valuable report. The Forestry Commission is about to publish a delivery plan. We will listen carefully to the points that were made. I think that if I may suggest that members might benefit from reading paragraph 61, the second tour, which talks about the role of the accredited specialist. It is an idea that is worthy of strong consideration of their arguments against, but perhaps a reading of those paragraphs would address some of the doubts that we have heard expressed and are perfectly understandable. Dearfencing is an essential tool in ensuring the successful establishment of new woodlands, and private forestry is likely to continue to rely principally on fences to protect woodland creation schemes. However, as was pointed out by Rhoda Grant, by Mr Wightman, and certainly by Mr Day, who made remarks about that, we need to have robust deer management. We need to work with bodies such as the Association of Deer Management in order to do that and to work in collaboration with everyone in order to find a way ahead. Mr Wightman enlivened the debate with his contribution, and he made the novel suggestion that forestry should be made obligatory. I am not quite sure how the novel suggestion would accord with article 1 of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms. If he knows how that could be done and navigated, could he please write to me? I do feel myself that it is far better to work to encourage those involved in land management in Scotland to persuade them that forestry is a sensible long-term investment, and it is indeed in the right place, at the right time and in the right way, not to tell them that they must do that, even where it is legal, which I suspect that one would find that it is not. I think that I am due to close, unless I have another few minutes to carry on, in which case I will. I want to close by stating that we are absolutely committed to further the cause of community ownership of Woodlands, just as we did, and I played a part when energy minister in encouraging community ownership of renewables. I think that there is an overwhelming opportunity now for us to work together, private sector and public sector, NGOs and professionals, the Government here and in the local authorities and in communities throughout Scotland in order to find ways to continue the good work that we have done with over 30 community ownership schemes and to build on possibly new and innovative ways how that can be carried out. Conclusion, Presiding Officer, may I thank all members for what I think was perhaps one of the most positive and constructive debates that there has been in this session of Parliament, at least those in which I have taken part. Thank you. That concludes our debate on developing.