Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes—I want to ask the rest of my questions.

In a way, Stuart Goodall has touched on what I want to ask about, and it was good to hear from David Robertson about that initiative. The draft climate change plan includes two policies on harvested wood products. One is to continue to collaborate with the private forestry sector on the timber development programme to promote and develop wood products for use in construction, and the other is to work with the sector through the forestry and wood-based industry leadership group.

However, we do not have clarity on what the Government is aiming to do in that regard. Are there targets? What is the Government looking for in relation to production and the speed with which it wants to get more harvested wood products into the construction sector, other than just timber frames and some of the things that Stuart Goodall articulated? Can you give us a bit of clarity on harvested wood products? The policies seem to be somewhat vague. The Government has said that it will work with the sector, but what are we trying to achieve?

I would like to pick up on a comment that you made, Peter, about the idea that peatland restoration is really a volunteer scheme and that we potentially need some sticks to push people towards doing it. In the scale of everything that we are considering in relation to peatland restoration, do you have a feeling that landowners and land managers are forthcoming about it, or do we have a problem? Is there resistance? Do people not know that they have access to peatland action officers?

Connected to that, a couple of people have mentioned the regional land use partnerships. We have a tremendous one in the Highlands and Islands: NorthWest2045. I wonder how—knowing that we need to get on with this—regional land use partnerships help to bring people along who may not yet be on board.

As Alan McDonnell was talking, it struck me that, when local authorities across Scotland are writing their woodland and forestry strategies, part of that will involve delivering on climate. Is that part of the just transition? How do we ensure that local authorities are involved in the climate change plan? It would be great if anyone could speak about that in any way.

Thank you.

Yes—I hear that you have already been raising concerns, and I was interested to read Future Economy Scotland’s view that the direction and scale of private finance may not be what is needed. You talk about forms of taxation: land value tax and things like that. I would be interested to hear a bit more about Future Economy Scotland’s thoughts about how we would fund work in this area.

Before I ask my questions, I will let everybody know that I am a member of the Community Woodlands Association.

I want to move on to the area of harvested wood products. I will address my opening question to Stuart Goodall, who can tell us the answer to it, and then I will broaden out to a question on the policies around harvested wood products in the climate change plan. Stuart, what is Scottish wood harvested for in Scotland? What is the timber harvested for? Do the products that we harvest continue to lock up carbon? Somebody touched on that earlier.

But we are not hearing that. The problem is that we are not seeing concrete—

One of the challenges that we established earlier regarding the producer organisation aspect is that the definition is reserved. Does that include the requirements for the organisation to have a turnover of at least £1 million, for producers to contribute 100 per cent—or 75 per cent—of their product, and for the organisation to have a minimum of five producers?

I hear that you want to keep the funding, because—as I have understood—it is not so much about protecting the three producer organisations but preventing people south of the border from tapping into the Scottish budget. It was fascinating to hear that, if we do not pass the SSI, more people could tap into the £3 million fund from the start of next year.

I hear all the reasons why you want to keep the producer organisation scheme, which are that it works for the three producer organisations. However, is it possible that, instead of doing that scheme, the Government could step back and say, “Let us create a fruit and veg scheme”? This is the first SSI that has directly addressed fruit and vegetables. Surely we should have an SSI that would let us fund all fruit and vegetable producers and take a percentage of the Scottish agricultural budget—let us say that is 4 per cent, or something—and let any producer be able to access it. We could do that rather than create this exclusionary policy, which is odd. You are effectively asking us to pass an SSI that would support three producers organisations but not let anyone else to come in for the next four years. If we do not support the SSI, more producer organisations could be set up and get into action.

It is also interesting that there were 11 producers organisations but now, after several years, there are only three. We got down to three producer organisations and we are now creating an exclusion through this SSI that will allow only those three to continue. In the meantime, there are a lot of other producers that want and need access to all the things that could help them to produce food for Scotland.

No one else can get into the fund until 2029.

If we pass the SSI.