| Allan Wilson:
I thank members
for an interesting debate. I think that there is broad agreement among
members about Scotland's general direction of travel in relation to forestry.
That agreement was emphasised by Alasdair Morgan's speech. However, there
are inevitably different views about precisely how we should get there
and the weight that we give to different priorities.
I chide Christine
Grahame slightly by saying that it is not true that my colleagues and I
do not take the forestry industry seriously. I am not sure whether forestry
is sexy, as Jamie Stone suggested it should be, but forests can be fun.
[Laughter.] I am serious. The glossy document—"Scotland's Trees, Woods
and Forests"—to which Alasdair Morgan referred and to publication of which
I plead guilty, states that Scotland's forests have 361 forest walks, 110
picnic sites, 94 cycle trails, 55 horse-riding routes, 14 orienteering
routes and so on.
The £4
million investment, which I believe has been welcomed throughout the chamber,
will promote the leisure and recreational uses of forests. That will advance
Scotland's economy and create jobs in the leisure and recreational industries
and should be welcomed by all. In my job, I devote a great deal of my time,
energy and commitment to promoting the importance of Scottish forestry
in the Scottish economy. I will continue to do so and if the list of visits
that arise from the debate on the matter is anything to go by, I will certainly
be busy in the coming period.
I think that
we all acknowledge that important challenges face Scottish forestry. First,
there is the problem that is posed by the low price of timber, to which
many members referred. We cannot ignore that, but as members will know,
I cannot interfere with international exchange markets. However, we must
recognise that forestry is, as Alasdair Morgan said, a long-term business
and that, in a real sense, the resources that we commit to forestry now
will benefit future generations. Therefore, I want to draw attention to
policies on new plant and growth.
We are also
keen for forestry to be more closely integrated with other land uses in
Scotland. An essential feature of the new administrative arrangements for
forestry is that the national office for Scotland will be more closely
involved in policy development in related areas of Executive business.
Members referred to obvious examples of that and I referred earlier to
integrating the activities of the Forestry Commission more closely with
the enterprise objectives of promoting jobs in the tourism, leisure and
recreation industries.
John Home Robertson
talked about effectively abolishing the Forestry Commission. That was an
option in the devolution review, but I did not favour it. The proposed
changes will bring forestry policy in from the cold, as John Home Robertson
wants, through a strengthened national office for Scotland.
Apart from certain
aspects of international representation, forestry is fully devolved, but
it makes good sense to take advantage of the economies of scale that can
come from operating across the larger market of Britain. That is never
clearer than in relation to research. Someone—Christine Grahame, I think—suggested
wrongly that we could do that without primary legislation. Even if such
a move were desirable, legislation would be required both in this Parliament
and Westminster.
On investment
in roads, when I challenged David Mundell to say how much more the Tories
would invest than we are currently investing, the result was silence. That
is understandable, because the Tories failed signally to invest in roads
during their tenure in office. I take the point that in order to gain value
from the product we must ensure that it can get to the market. I also accept
that in order to achieve that, we must invest in the roads infrastructure
in rural areas. However, I believe firmly that the way to achieve that
is to give additional resources to local authorities, so that the local
authorities can then engage with the industry in their locality. Through
the timber transport groups and through the timber transport forum, progress
can be made in devising strategies and plans for getting the product from
the forest to the market.
The use of wood
fuel in new housing developments was mentioned by Fergus Ewing and others,
including Christine Grahame and Rhoda Grant, and I agree firmly with them
that the matter is important. George Lyon provided the Parliament with
an example of that from his constituency. I can tell members that the Executive
is involved in preparing a scheme to encourage the supply of wood fuel
from forests to end-users. We are funding a large partnership project to
quantify the size and location of the wood fuel that can be obtained from
traditional forests and from mill co-product as well as from biomass in
towns and transport corridors.
Robin Harper:
Will the Executive issue advice to local authorities?
I know from my meeting with Torren Energy Ltd that, despite receiving help
from one place, it found had difficulty getting local authorities to appreciate
its ideas.
Allan Wilson:
I will certainly consider that, because it
sounds to me like a good idea. I know that the local authorities in my
constituency have been involved in discussions that have taken place involving
the forestry industries cluster, Clydeport and Forestry Enterprise about
a new wood fuel power plant, but it might be appropriate to issue more
general advice.
Having given
Robin Harper that assurance, I will perhaps also chide him somewhat because
I made extensive reference in my opening speech to the importance of forests
to our natural environment. The Forestry Commission will of course work
with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on the new water framework
directive. Indeed, if Robin Harper is not already aware of it, he should
know that new guidelines on forests and water that reflect the directive
are now out for consultation. It is for members to feed into that consultative
process.
Fergus Ewing:
On the use of wood for power generation, there
has been much talk about the prospect of coal-fired power stations being
run on coal and wood. If that became a reality, would the minister accept
that such a development would create a substantial market for wood that
could be provided from Scotland and from south of the border? Does he accept
that that would make a huge contribution to the consumption of the wall
of wood that we will see shortly?
Allan Wilson:
I accept the general point that the advancement
of new biofuel production technologies presents tremendous scope for the
use of wood in conjunction with other fuel sources and that that would
create great opportunities for the industry.
Before I took
that intervention, I was about to say that the new grants scheme to which
I referred in my opening speech will offer higher rates for riparian wood,
which is wood that is grown alongside rivers and burns.
Alex Fergusson:
rose—
Allan Wilson:
I cannot take any more interventions, but I will try to deal with the points
that Alex Fergusson raised. I recognise that the member reflected the industry's
desire for relaxation of the 40-hectare limit for the grants schemes—perhaps
that was the point on which he wanted to intervene. We need to be cautious
until the forward commitments settle down. We have made strenuous efforts
to maintain annual payment rates in the face of falling farm incomes and
we have agreed annual limits, which we will relax when it is sensible to
do so. A question was also raised about the environmental impact in a certain
part of Ayrshire, which I am not in a position to comment on, because if
the applicant chooses to appeal they will appeal to Scottish ministers.
The grant scheme is being developed in partnership with the industry, environmental
bodies and local authorities. The Executive has accepted all their recommendations.
It is a Scottish scheme, and it will remain so.
Rhona Brankin
asked whether the northern research station was safe and I am happy to
announce that it is. The quinquennial review has concluded and there is
no intention to relocate that station.
George Lyon
raised important points about the positive contribution that the processing
industry makes, and the proposed second line at the Caledonian Paper plc
factory in Irvine, which is close to my constituency. It goes without saying
that we are doing all that we can to help the company to make the case
for investment in Scotland, rather than in other parts of Europe that might
be in the frame for the investment. My colleague Iain Gray has been in
constant contact with the company and has travelled overseas to ensure
that Scotland's interests are being reflected.
It is unfortunate
that Margaret Ewing is not here, because my final point is about added
value and timber. I agree with most, if not all, of what she said. Although
little of our timber is exported before processing, members throughout
the chamber share the aim that we should endeavour to ensure that as much
timber as possible is processed in Scotland so that the value that is added
to our timber product is retained in Scotland.
To
read this debate in full, click here
|
