Forestry
January 29, 2009 11:14 PM
By Jim Hume MSP
By Jim Hume MSP
Thank you presiding officer.
The labour motion today reflects what Liberal Democrats have been calling for for many weeks now and has our support; our amendment simply expands on how hard the SNP proposal would hit Scotland.
This Government's proposal to auction off one of Scotland's most prized natural assets for a one off, bargain basement sum under the guise that the money COULD be used for climate change measures, doesn't add up.
The effective sell off of the most commercial public forestry estate will not benefit Scotland and nor will it solve the many issues of climate change; it is naïve at best and reckless at worst. And there's been widespread opposition to the proposal from environmental, business and public representation. Community groups will be left out in the cold as they could see their local woods snapped up by banks and investors; there's a question mark over the future of leisure tourism; and the economic future of rural communities are under threat.
No-one can guarantee that for 75 years sawmills and other companies dependent on wood as their raw material will have the same cutting contracts with private landlords, as is currently provided by the Forestry Commission.
The Minister can't guarantee there'll be no redundancies within the FC. The jobs guarantee is no guarantee at all. The TUPE regulations mean nothing - to quote from the regulations - employees' terms and conditions may not be changed unless for "economical, organisational or technical reasons". That's every reason under the sun.
And how can the FC guarantee its own workers jobs, when 25% of its most commercial land is no longer in its management, with 35% to 40% of its timber income lost overnight? Leaving a Forestry Commission with a vulnerable future.
We couldn't see the same level of woodland investment that we have seen through the Forestry Commission, therefore the prospect of new tourism initiatives, like 7 stanes, is nil as is the prospect of expanding or maintaining existing facilities.
We've been told that "it's ok, only remote areas will be leased off"- like Galloway Forest and Argyll - what a centralist attitude that is. Are these not the areas that most need economic stimulation?
{ And what point a not for profit trust, surely the FC acts like a trust fund anyway and is fully accountable! "Unnecessary and over bureaucratic" - not my words but the words of the FC trade union. }
Mike Russell even admitted in an answer to a PQ, that leasing may bring a lower return than joint ventures, then why propose leasing?
Well because it's nothing more than an Arthur Daley style instant cash generating scheme, selling the nation's family silver to do so. £200m only equates to £2.66m per year over the 75 years - but we'd lose £17m per year in timber income - absolute madness -plus the private lessee may have access to SRDP funds and cost the Govt more - poor maths.
{ In the words of one of the thousands of people who replied to my forestry survey -
"If I'd had any inkling of what we were in for, Alex Salmond and his cronies would never have got my vote. Being a party to their vainglorious appropriation of the Scottish Parliament will be a thing I regret for the rest of my days." }
further quotes - the authors of this consultation have grossly underestimated the effect on investment and jobs - there's a significant risk to the supply chain and there's been a suspension of major capital expenditure - risking rural employment - not my words but the words of 19 timber companies that need their wood supply to survive - drop this madness now
I move my amendment on behalf of Liberal Democrats.
What would you like to do next?
-
Subscribe for updates
Follow the party's activity on...
- Twitter:
- Liberal Democrats
- Facebook:
- Liberal Democrats
- YouTube:
- Liberal Democrats