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 asked a question earlier about whether funding streams support what we are trying to do. Certainly, from my conversations, I do not have a sense that existing policies and funding streams support the kind of integrated approach that you have described. Alan McDonnell, can I hear a little more from you about that?

Thanks for that great and comprehensive answer. I imagine that some of what we grow also ends up getting burned almost immediately.

To move on to the policies—

Alan, you touched on the trade-offs, which I want to come back on. We want to establish woodland in some areas, but we could be using that land for other things, and there could be other benefits. It would be interesting to hear about that.

Dr Gimona, when you talked earlier about planting, you were very careful to mention that we would not be planting on arable land and that we would not be moving out farming; the planting would be integrated. You talked well about the multifunctional land use strategy, which would be more integrated rather than moving away from the idea of trade-offs and would look at that nuanced approach of integration.

We have established where we should prioritise: arable land, field margins, riparian corridors, urban fringe—which Mike Perks talked about in relation to Glasgow—and, potentially, brownfield sites. Does the draft climate change plan, or do the existing policies and funding streams, actually prioritise those areas?

So, you are saying that we need to encourage the Government to look more broadly at opportunities for how we finance restoration. Basically, you think that the committee might need to highlight that in our report on the plan. I think that I am hearing you.

My next question is: do you have confidence in the development of a values-led, high-integrity market for responsible investment? You might know about Professor Jill Robbie’s work on a public carbon trust. I was working with her in an attempt to get that brought forward so that we can have a system that pulls together all the carbon codes and so on and allows them to be verified, validated and monitored. Do you have any thoughts on the issue of a values-led, high-integrity market? Are we moving in that direction?

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.