I thank my hon. Friend for making those comments, and I associate myself with them. It is sometimes said that Wales is the most efficient spruce factory in the world, as growing conditions are very good. The small companies and businesses in the timber business are very important to supporting the rural communities in England and Wales that they serve.

A great feature that has affected not only Forest Enterprise and the state forest but private timber-growers has been the collapse of commodity prices in recent years. Some of the best logs at roadside would have reached perhaps £55 a cubic metre in the past, but are now selling at roughly £33 a cubic metre. The private and public sectors have had to take account of the reduction in commodity prices.

I welcome the fact that a number of the Baltic nations have realised the recklessness of their activity in the world market, and want to go up a quality and not just compete on price. They are looking again at their trading relationship with Britain and considering whether it can be put on a more commercial basis, instead of their dumping timber in this country at very low prices. I am concerned at some reports from Russia about forests not being managed sustainably. There are reports that certain harvesting has taken place to release cash for people who have come back into land after the fall of communism. Some people have come into private ownership but have no traditional skills in forestry management, and as such have seen the harvesting as a cash benefit. The Government should take countenance of that, and ensure that the timber coming into this country has been produced from sustainable sources.

Given that background, it has been difficult for the Forestry Commission and Forest Enterprise to balance the social and environmental side of their remit with the obvious need for economic viability. I have some sympathy with them; that is not an easy balancing act. I commend much of the work that has gone into producing the public goods—that is, the work that has gone into access, recreation and conservation issues. In light of the recent pronouncement of the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality on the use of mechanically driven vehicles on public footpaths and rights of way, perhaps forest land could be a suitable place for those more intrusive types of recreation.

It is important to note that although current timber prices have hampered both public and private forestry, the UK timber industry comprises producers and processors employing nearly 30,000 people. It is estimated that £2 billion will be invested in saw-mills and paper and board-mills in the next 15 years, and that will add to that employment.

Investment is taking place in my constituency, and the firm involved informs me that it really values the presence of Forest Enterprise, as it guarantees a flow of product into its saw-mills. A number of people question the way in which Forest Enterprise is managed, and I have no doubt that suggestions will have been made. Some have suggested to me that Forest Enterprise should be privatised, and could be run better by private individuals or companies. When the UK Forest Products Association met recently, it certainly reinforced the view that Forest Enterprise plays a valued role in providing continuity of supply of commodity and therefore enables saw-mills and other processors to plan their investment on the basis that they have assured throughput. That is the conclusion that I have come to, too.

The social and environmental benefits of forests are clear. Research carried out for the Woodland Trust in its report, "Making Woodland Count: its Contribution to our Quality of Life", shows that forest areas meet 11 of the 15 Government headline quality-of-life indicators for sustainable development. They provide opportunities for recreation, wildlife and physical activity, which are so important to making our young people fit and healthy.

It is also important to consider UK forestry in economic terms. It is right that the Forestry Commission is partially funded through the sale of timber from public forests. However, it is important that Forest Enterprise takes into account the effect that its sales will have on the market price for domestic timber producers. Given the already depressed state of timber markets, it is vital that the market price is not adversely affected by sales from Forest Enterprise that are designed to balance its own books. It is important that efficiency is not confused with the over-simplistic goal of turning a short-term profit or short-term cash flow. The criticism has been put to me that Forest Enterprise has been going into stands that are not mature—not ready for felling—and as a result producing timber of not very good quality, which further depresses the commodity price.

The Forestry Commission has recently increased its emphasis and spending on non-core business activities while neglecting, some would say, its core business of timber production. It must consider commercial timber production as a key element, because we will not be able to finance the public goods unless the core business is profitable. The situation that I have described is down to the direction of Government. I support the intentions of the policy, but its implementation has sometimes been counter-productive. It is vital that a real commitment remains to supporting domestic commercial forestry, as that is the surest way of achieving the social and environmental aims of the Forestry Commission.

I welcome the proposals to reform the powers of the Forestry Commission. The strengthening of ties with the private and voluntary sectors is vital for the health of the industry. That will allow for the provision of public goods, rather than leaving the fate of the industry to depressed timber prices. The issue of restocking orders is also important for sustainable practice. I draw the Minister's attention to the excellent work carried out in that regard by the Welsh Minister for Rural Development in 2003. He made the important point that the quality of restocking should be considered with particular emphasis on the expansion of ancient woodland, especially in areas where that would have a direct effect on local communities.

Having said that, I have heard criticisms about the proposals to have at least 50 per cent. of land in continuous cover—that is, people do not go in and clear-fell but have trees of different age groups in a plantation. This issue is of great importance. We believe that rushing into that will have a deleterious effect on the quantity of timber produced and the continuity of supply, so we would like it to be considered again.

In the few minutes remaining to me, I shall outline the Liberal Democrat proposals for the future of Government involvement in forestry in the UK. That can have only limited scope in the recommendations for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. First, it is vital that a viable and sustainable public forestry service is maintained. That not only preserves the valuable public assets of woodlands and forests but benefits the industry as a whole—processors and saw-mills. The role of the service should encompass acting as a facilitator to private forest concerns through the grants system operated by the Forestry Commission and through the responsible activities of Forest Enterprise. Short-term losses should not lead to panic decision making; rather, it is through considered strategic thinking that the Forestry Commission will best serve the needs of the industry and the public.

Timber growing and processing is vital to the economy of the UK, but it is also important for communities and the environment. Competitiveness is compatible with sustainability, and the Government should be playing their part in ensuring that the forestry in this country achieves that.