Rural Affairs Committee, 14 Mar 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 14, 2000

Official Report 211KB pdf

---

Forestry Strategy

As members will recall, we have discussed forestry before. We asked the Forestry Commission to come back to the committee with its consultative strategy. I am delighted to welcome John Home Robertson to present that strategy to us.

Thank you, chairmen, and thank you for your courtesy in waiting for all members to arrive before starting. As you know, Alasdair, that does not happen at Westminster.

I am grateful for the opportunity to launch the final stage of the consultation on the Scottish forestry strategy by presenting our draft strategy document to the committee this afternoon. It seemed appropriate to present such an important document to a committee of the Parliament, rather than launching it at a press conference, as some ministers do elsewhere. I am keen to give the committee its place and I hope that we will take each other seriously.

As members will know, the Scottish Executive has made a commitment as part of its programme for government to publish a Scottish forestry strategy by the autumn of this year. This is the final part of that process. We want the strategy to be based firmly on the views of the people of Scotland. An initial consultation exercise began last summer, and more than 5,000 copies of a fairly short consultation paper, entitled "Forests for Scotland—consultation towards a Scottish forestry strategy", were distributed to local authorities, community councils, forestry organisations and interested individuals throughout the country. I know that members have seen that document. Copies were also made available at agricultural shows and on the internet.

There were about 250 responses, many of which came from organisations representing a large number of members. However, there was also a good spectrum of quality responses from individuals. Copies of any of the responses can be made available to the committee.

Everyone who responded to the consultation exercise was invited to a seminar in Dunkeld last November, which about 150 people attended. At that gathering, the results of the consultation exercise were presented and the main issues were debated. The draft strategy that you have before you reflects the responses to the consultation and to the debate at the seminar in Dunkeld.

The draft has been put together by a working group chaired by the Forestry Commission but including staff from other departments and agencies: the Scottish Executive rural affairs department, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

Following concerns that were raised at the initial consultation exercise, I invited two external assessors to join the working group: Peter Wilson, the executive director of the Forestry Industry Council of Great Britain, and Jim McCarthy, an environmental consultant. Members will recall that David Henderson-Howatt, on my left, who is chairman of the group and chief conservator of the Forestry Commission in Scotland, attended a meeting of the committee on 16 November to answer questions about the preliminary consultation process.

The draft strategy prepared by the group is a fairly lengthy and complex document. Whereas the initial consultation paper was deliberately targeted at a general audience, the working group decided that the draft strategy itself should contain more substantial and detailed analysis. The draft strategy sets out a number of general principles and strategic directions. I will not read them out—they are summarised on pages 4 and 5 of the Executive summary.

However, I will read out the paragraph that sets out the fundamental vision:

"The Scottish Forestry Strategy is the Scottish Executive's framework for taking forestry forward, through the first part of the new century and beyond. Its vision is that Scotland will be renowned as a land of fine trees, whose valuable forest resource both strengthens the economy and enriches the natural environment, and where people are proud of their trees, woods and forests. The intention is to promote confidence in the future of forestry, encouraging investment that will benefit current and future generations. High quality trees, woods and forests can help make Scotland a better place for people to live and work and visit."

Part 2 of the strategy develops the analysis and explains how we can help to realise that vision, using forestry to contribute to the economy, to conserve and improve the environment and to enhance the quality of life of communities. We are not trying to reinvent the tree, but we are seeking to give trees and forests a new status in Scotland.

Obviously, we are not starting from scratch. We have the advantage of a lot of experience and a wealth of good practice in Scotland's forests. The continuation of that good work is vital to the health and value of Scotland's trees, woods and forests. A key part of the draft strategy identifies priorities for action to build on what has already been achieved and to do things even better in future.

For each strategic direction, a number of priorities for action have been identified. They have been printed on a different colour of paper in part 3 of the draft. Each priority is explained: what the benefits of action are; what needs to be done; what the costs are; and who needs to be involved. Indicators of progress are also suggested.

To take one example—the need to develop the timber transport infrastructure—I was delighted that Sarah Boyack was able to announce a freight facilities grant of more than £4 million last month to promote the use of shipping, which will help to reduce the pressure of timber transport on the roads of Argyll and Bute.

Finally, the draft strategy deals with delivery. The strategy itself is not an operational document. It provides a broad framework and establishes priorities. Tactical decisions and local implementation will be based on those agreed priorities, which will include the Forestry Commission's corporate plan for Scotland and the action plan for the forestry industries that Scottish Enterprise is preparing.

Once we have agreed and adopted the strategy, the Scottish Executive will be able to take account of it in developing policies that have an impact on forestry. I expect that the principles and the strategic directions will remain fairly constant, but the priorities for action may need to be reviewed and updated in future years.

It is important that we agree and publish a set of indicators of progress so that we can monitor performance. Within five years there will be a further consultation to gauge the success of the implementation of the strategy and to form a basis for reviewing priorities for action.

Today, the Forestry Commission is sending copies of the draft strategy to everyone who responded to the initial consultation exercise. The strategy can also be found on the Forestry Commission's website. Six regional meetings will be held over the next week or two—in Dumfries, St Boswells, Inverurie, Dingwall, Lochgilphead and Perth—to present the draft and to promote final discussion. We are allowing 12 weeks for consultation. At the end of that process, I am confident that we will be able to produce a fine-tuned document, which takes into account the views of all those who have an interest in Scotland's forests. I emphasise that this is a strategy for development and not another strand of red—or even green—tape to tie up the industry.

As I said in the foreword to the draft strategy, our trees, woods and forests play an important part in Scottish life. They cover about one fifth of our land area, with more than 10,000 people employed in forestry and wood processing, which represent a substantial element of the economy of rural Scotland and a sector that will grow as timber production doubles over the next 15 years.

Thanks to the devolution of responsibility for forestry and woodlands to the Scottish Parliament, we can now begin to develop distinctive Scottish policies, which will allow Scottish forestry to take its place as a thriving industry and ensure sustainable land use, enjoying widespread public support.

I welcome comments or questions from members. If you wish to return to any aspect of this subject in future, we will be happy to oblige.

Thank you minister. Members have received the Executive's summary only today, if they have received it at all.

The papers should have been circulated this morning.

I understand that the Executive's summary was circulated this morning but that members may not have had the chance to read it. The draft strategy was not available to members, although if they want to rush across to Parliament Headquarters they can get a copy now.

I had understood that the whole document would be circulated this morning.

I suspect that, even if the document had been circulated, members would not have been able to read it in detail. Nevertheless, members may have questions that arise from the general issues.

Do you think that the strategy will lead to legislation or do you think that it can be implemented without benefit of legislation?

I think that your committee will be pleased to hear that we do not envisage legislation. It should be possible to implement the ideas that are set out in the strategy using mechanisms that are available under current statute.

Will there be significant budgetary implications for the Executive?

The Executive already spends about £25 million a year on forestry, some of which is recoverable from the European Union, but most of which is not. We anticipate that we will work within existing budgets.

I welcome the balance of the five strategic directions and the emphasis that you place on aspects other than the purely economic, essential though the economic aspects of forestry production are. I noted that the creation of new employment opportunities in rural areas is a priority for action listed under the strategic direction

"To help communities to use woods and forests to promote development".

As the committee is undertaking an inquiry into rural employment, will you tell us the areas in which you are optimistic that new jobs will emerge?

At present, there are 10,000 jobs, about 7,000 of which are in forests and 3,000 of which are in sawmills. The output from our forests will double in the next 15 years, so there should be opportunities for further employment. We are also keen to examine ways of adding value to the timber that comes out of our forests. Far too much of our wood gets exported from Scotland, and far too much of the UK's wood is imported from outside—I am sure that everybody understands that we have a distorted market at present.

There must be opportunities for increasing the share of the timber that is used in Britain from Scottish forests and for adding value. That goes right across the board, not just for softwood, which we have in abundance, but for broadleaf and hardwood timber. There is a lot of potential.

I welcome the fact that Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are actively considering ways in which to develop timber-based clusters in obvious areas, such as the south-west of Scotland and the Highlands.

I will put my constituency hat on and say that I regard that as very encouraging for the paper industry in Aberdeen. The added value that you referred to can be created in downstream manufacturing processes.

The potential is there, but we are in a difficult position at the moment because the world price of timber is at its lowest ever. Over the past four years, there has been a 40 per cent fall in the price of commodity timber. That gives rise to short-term problems.

I notice, minister, that one of the priorities in the strategy is

"To help communities use woods and forest to promote development".

That heading includes the aim to

"Increase opportunities for community consultation".

In West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, controversy is raging over the use of the forest of Durris by four-wheel drive vehicles. Community councils have led the complaints that local people have not been consulted about the developments in that area. I am pleased that you want to increase opportunities for community consultation because it is the Forestry Commission that is developing the use of four-wheel drive vehicles in Durris, and the local community does not feel that that is a good use for the forest. You say that you want to help communities to promote development, but do you really mean to help the Forestry Commission to maximise its profit margin?

We are keen on promoting community-owned forests where that is appropriate. It is important that there is a sense of ownership, pride and locality in the forests that are developed—that is central to the strategy.

Mike Rumbles wrote to me on that point and will have received a reply. Over the weekend, I had my ear bent on the same subject by a Labour party delegate from that constituency.

The matter will be fresh in your memory.

I appreciate that there is controversy about that matter. In some remote areas of forest, there are opportunities to consider different uses, provided that they will not have an adverse impact on the environment or annoy local residents. It sounds to me as though Durris is not all that remote.

We all know about groups of young people who want to indulge in various sports that might not be appropriate close to people's houses, but which might be appropriate in some remote piece of forest. That is something that needs to be discussed by the local authorities and communities and the people who own the forest. I hear what you are saying, Mr Rumbles.

Are you saying that you want to increase opportunities for community consultation? That is very important.

Yes. The strategy deals largely with new forests and changes in the management of forests. However, it also applies to the management of existing forests and to diversity in that.

Mike Rumbles has covered a couple of the points that I was going to raise. The vast majority of the members of the strategy working group that was mentioned are from quangos. To what extent do local communities have an input into the strategy?

There is a table in the document—it is not your fault that you have not seen it, as it has only just been passed round. Appendix 1, on page 79, provides a breakdown of the people who have responded to the document. You will note that 17 per cent of those people came from community councils. About 40 community councils have pitched in, but the table lists the percentages. We are encouraged by the breadth of the input that they have had, and we want a bit more.

I was going to ask whether you were satisfied with the response that you have received from local communities. Do you envisage any limit to the community ownership of forests? The Forestry Commission would not be happy if lots of communities wanted to take over ownership of their local forests.

I favour the principle of community ownership, but we need to be a little careful. The management of forests is a long-term business; it is quite complicated and requires resources and expertise. We should be careful in encouraging groups of local enthusiasts to take over land. There are some good examples of community forestry in central Scotland—I am pleased to see that Cathy Peattie is nodding her head, as some of those examples are in the Falkirk area—and we would like to develop that concept.

Minister, I am sure that you will agree with me—

Do not bank on it.

You are doing so more and more often, I have noticed.

I am delighted with two things in this report. The first is the emphasis on the problem of transporting timber; the second is the absolutely correct resolve to add value wherever possible in Scotland and, I hope, in the region in which the timber is produced. The more value that is added to a product close to where it is grown, the easier it will be to solve the problem of transport. Obviously, the less transportation that is involved, the better for everybody concerned—particularly if, as you said, timber production will double over the next 15 years. How do you envisage that happening?

To get the timber from the forest to the end user will necessitate transport. At present, we are harvesting 4 million cu m of timber a year in Scotland—that is 4 million tonnes of timber coming out of our forests. Of that, 95 per cent is being moved by road. You do not need to be a genius to work out that that involves an awful lot of truck movements. The vast majority of that is made up of round logs that are coming out of the forests and going all the way to the mill. Value is added to it later, by making it into paper pulp or structural timber.

I agree with Alex Fergusson. This is embarrassing; we are going to have a love-in if we are not careful.

Do not panic.

We should seek to develop opportunities to add value to timber in the forest areas at every opportunity. In the case of paper manufacture, in which high volumes of timber are involved, it is not possible to locate production near every forest. That must be managed strategically.

Last week, I attended a conference in New Lanark on the better use of Scottish hardwoods. We are encouraging more planting of hardwoods; as many broadleaf trees are being planted in Scotland as softwoods. That must be good news for the landscape, as well as for the potential value of what is being produced. At present, far too much of the hardwood that is cut goes up the chimney as firewood. A lot of that wood could be used for furniture or structural timber—or furnishings in Parliament buildings, for example. I was encouraged to see so many architects at the conference—it was very well attended and there was a lot of enthusiasm. A lot of quality businesses are coming in to this field and we need to encourage them.

I do not know whether that says something about the time scales for the Parliament.

If Señor Miralles was there, we can worry.

Do not worry—there is a big enough stockpile of good hardwood.

I want to underline the fact that it is very difficult to discuss this strategy in any detail today, given that we received the document only 10 minutes ago. I am a little concerned that MSPs are not getting sufficient opportunity to have an input.

Bearing in mind the fact that forestry and timber products need all the promotion that they can get, has the Executive given any thought to having a more high-profile launch and to discussing the draft strategy document as part of the business of Parliament, as has been the case with other draft strategies? Why has that not happened with the forestry strategy?

This is a committee of the Parliament, and we are bringing the strategy here, which seems to me to be giving you your proper place. I apologise for the fact that you did not get the full document first thing this morning—that will have been because of a misunderstanding somewhere down the line. You should at least have had the Executive summary. Hardened veterans of politics will understand the problem. We know from bitter experience at Westminster that, if documents get circulated to committees several days in advance of meetings such as this, they almost invariably get leaked. That was why the decision was taken to make it available to the committee this morning. However, there has been a misunderstanding over whether you should have received the Executive summary or the full document. Lessons will be drawn from that.

I would say that even receiving it this morning did not allow us sufficient time. Some of us had committee meetings from 9 o'clock this morning until 1 o'clock and so would not have had the chance to consider it before 2 o'clock. I draw a comparison with what happened to the draft cultural strategy, which did not go to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, but was debated fully in Parliament. Cynical people might say that rural issues are sometimes a little sidelined and do not get the high profile that other issues do.

I was anxious not to sideline your committee.

I have not had a chance to read this document, so perhaps David Henderson-Howatt or someone can answer this question. Where has consultation made the biggest impact in your strategy? What strategic direction are you taking that you might not have taken prior to consultation?

Right—how long have you got? There are fundamental differences between the opinions of the different interest groups. At one pole is the green environmental lobby, which gives total priority to landscape, environment, habitats and all the rest of it, and at the other is the purely commercial lobby, which just wants to produce as much timber as it can for as much money as possible.

The whole strategy is designed to knit those interests together and to take account of wider public interests. We were all aware of the various strands of opinion and of the different pressures from different interests. Our intention was to achieve a balance, and I think that, in this strategy document, we have done so.

I will ask David to come in here, because he has been directly involved in the consultation. Is there anything in particular that has been influenced heavily by representations from the public?

Those representations have been desperately important. If you compare the initial consultation paper with the strategy document, you will see that an awful lot of the meat of the strategy document comes directly from the responses to the consultation and from what we got out of our seminar in Dunkeld and other discussions. That sort of input from people on all sides of the argument—as the minister said—has been fundamental to the development of this document.

I welcome the basic thrust of the document. I have not had an opportunity to read through the full draft, but the summary is very helpful and explains many of the initiatives that the Forestry Commission has promoted.

There is nothing new in what is being said, however. Between the two wars and following the second world war, the Forestry Commission greatly supported local communities in much of rural Scotland; it even provided homes and kept communities together. It has a strong tradition of co-operation in rural Scotland, which I am sure will continue.

The document talks about community support and I think that the commission has the support of the community in many of the areas in which it operates. However, I heard the minister say that he was pleased to support the Government's investment of £4 million in the transportation of timber. I was disappointed when he said that that would apply only in Argyll and Bute.

The investment is actually in Ayr. I should have said that. However, it will benefit Argyll and Bute.

As Alex Fergusson said, the problem is that, as Forest Enterprise develops and the timber matures, shipping it to the point of use becomes a problem. What does Forest Enterprise intend to do to co-operate with local authorities to ensure that rural Scotland's road system is not torn apart by the extraction of heavy loads of timber? If roads were destroyed, it would be the first time that we would hear criticism of the activities of Forest Enterprise.

This is a complicated issue. There has been a huge increase in the amount of woodland cover in Scotland—at the beginning of the century, only 5 per cent of the land was covered by trees and now the figure is 16 per cent and growing. Production will double in the next 15 years and a huge volume of soft wood will have to be shifted.

Forty per cent of the trees belong to the Forestry Commission and the rest are in private hands. That means that the problem does not relate only to the Forestry Commission. We want to use alternative forms of transport where possible. At present, timber going from Kintyre to Troon goes all the way up the Mull of Kintyre, past the Rest and Be Thankful and down through Glasgow by road. The upgrading of the port facilities in Ayr that we talked about will allow the timber to be shifted across the Firth of Clyde. It might be possible to develop similar alternative transport arrangements elsewhere. Railheads could be developed where there are railways. The Argyll timber transport group, which draws together the local authority and the forestry interests, is doing work on the matter and there are similar initiatives elsewhere in Scotland. As the husband of a Scottish Borders councillor, I am well aware that that local authority is concerned about the effect of freight on bridges and roads. I have no doubt that the damage to the road system is worse in Mr Munro's constituency.

There are innovative ways to solve the problems of freight. There is no need for all freight to go by public roads. Sensible co-operation between neighbouring estates can enable forest roads to be developed. There is scope for innovation.

I saw the first load of timber—1,000 tonnes of it—going into Ardrishaig the other day. The only problem was that it was loaded on a Sunday and there were complaints about the noise.

You mentioned the freight facilities grant for Ayr. However, one of the main problems the whole way up the west coast to Ross-shire and islands such as Mull that have a lot of timber is that the piers and facilities are in very poor repair. Are there any plans to use more of the freight facilities grant to repair some of those facilities?

If I start giving spending commitments, I will get into all sorts of trouble with Jack McConnell. I cited an example of what Sarah Boyack was able to announce on the freight facilities grant, which was to upgrade the port facilities to make it possible to handle timber. That device is available; however, it is a limited budget and will have to be dealt with in accordance with appropriate priorities.

Has the whole grant gone to Ayr?

I am not sure whether this project is in Ayr or Troon.

I have just been advised that it is in Ayr.

Certainly in the Ayr constituency.

You have a nasty, suspicious mind, convener.

This project facilitates the shifting of timber from Argyll to mills in Ayrshire. However, it is only one project; there is nothing to prevent people from setting up other projects in other parts of Scotland. In fact, we would encourage people to do that.

Was that your first or second question, Mr McGrigor?

That was my first question.

I was very pleased to see that attention has been given to integration in the forestry strategy. On page 4, the document says:

"Forestry should fit well with other rural activities in Scotland, such as agriculture, conservation, deer management, fishing".

Perhaps I should declare an interest. For a long time, I have had a hill farm in an area with a lot of forestry and some deer. There seems to have been a change in forestry policy on fencing, in that people are no longer fencing large areas of forest to keep deer out. In the past, a lot of money was made out of deerstalking in forestry areas. Although the current policy on deer is not exactly mass slaughter, it seems that not as many deer are wanted in the plantations as before. People now appear to be putting up stock fences instead of deer fences; deer jump over those fences, get into forestry areas and are shot. They are leached off open hill areas where they are used to supplement farmers' income.

I was very surprised not to find that area of tension addressed in the document, as it has been raised with me by deer groups and other individuals. Can you outline your policy on deer management?

I think that it is an area of tension in some places. However, the fundamental point is that it is a waste of time planting young trees if they are simply going to be scoffed by grazing deer.

May I butt in just there? My point was that deer fences used to be erected, but now stock fences are being put in their place.

We will have a seminar on capercaillies in a minute, if you can stand it. Environmentalists are very concerned that deer fences are killing capercaillies. I have yet to see a capercaillie, but I live in hope; it is a remarkable bird, which is unique to Scotland. However, the trouble is that they fly low along rides in forests and if there is a deer fence in the way, they commit suicide on it.

In Argyll and Bute—

Please let the minister finish.

We are under pressure from environmentalists and people concerned about capercaillies to minimise the number of deer fences and to take down deer fences that are no longer required because trees have grown up. I am not sure whether I have answered your question, however—try again, if you like.

I want to know from Mr Henderson-Howatt what the deer strategy is, so that I can tell people who ask me about it whether or not there is a slaughter policy.

Deer need to be controlled. We have been advised that the population in the areas that we are talking about should be in the region of five animals per 100 hectares, which is fairly thin stocking. Deer also need to be managed. That is a matter for Deer Commission, rather than for us.

The red deer is naturally a woodland animal, and in many of the forests we now have resident deer populations. In a sense, the presence or absence of a fence is immaterial—there would be deer in the forest anyway. As the minister said, it is our policy to get numbers down to the level of about five per square kilometre. That involves significant culling to protect the forest.

I am aware of the concern that exists about neighbouring estates. There is some dispute over the so-called vacuum theory—the extent to which, by killing deer in one place, one is sucking them in from another place.

That is what is happening. The deer jump over the little stock fences and are shot, because there are additional deer in the area. There is a leaching process. What is your policy on that?

Our general policy is not to deer-fence unless we have to—to control deer in the forest and, critically, to work closely with the Deer Commission and on deer management groups, so that as far as possible local problems can be dealt with locally.

It is good that the report has come to this committee. There is a lot in it, and I would like an opportunity to debate it more in the future. It will not surprise you that I am particularly interested in the community benefits aspect of the report, which is where it differs from the reports that I have seen in the past. Am I right to assume that community ownership comes with support for training and that communities will be helped to examine development possibilities? Cowie Woodcutters in Stirlingshire, for example, is a professional and well-run community business. Community ownership has been very important for economic development in that area.

Cowie Woodcutters is a good example of what can be done. Woodlands do not have to be limited to vast areas in the Highlands and Galloway. We are keen to have more woodlands in lowland areas and in central Scotland, close to urban areas. Community benefit extends right across the board. It includes the creation of employment, which Alex Fergusson mentioned. When we plan forestry developments, we want to seek to ensure that there are spin-offs for the local community. There are also indirect benefits. By enhancing the landscape, we improve the quality of life of the people who live in the area, raise property values and help other industries such as tourism. It is not enough simply to consider the cash value of a tree trunk. Forestry developments have many other benefits, which we need to take into account and work up.

Do you agree that communities need support, advice and expertise in doing that?

Yes, and that can be made available. There are a number of examples, particularly in the area that Cathy Peattie represents, of local communities and voluntary organisations showing an interest in working up woodlands, perhaps in association with local schools. Advice is available and we are keen to co-operate.

I want to return to the question of landscape. The document talks about developing forests of mixed species and encouraging alternatives to clear felling. Twenty or 30 years ago, when much of the woodland that is maturing now was planted, no consideration was given to what it was going to look like; trees were simply planted in great swathes throughout the countryside. Now that those forests are being felled, the same problems are being created all over again. The fact that they do not look very nice does not help tourism. Will there be an attempt to ensure that new forests fit in with the countryside in which they are being planted?

Better planning is dealt with in the document, and we would like communities and local authorities to be involved in planning. Instead of the Forestry Commission or a private woodland owner simply acquiring a slab of land and planting it with one species of trees from fence to fence and from horizon to horizon, we want forests to be planned in such a way as to blend in with the landscape. Planting a variety of species is beneficial to the environment, protects watercourses and provides a habitat that encourages wildlife.

That can be done, and much has been learned. My friends in the Forestry Commission—or their predecessors—may have had rather a bad name about 20 years ago because of the blanket approach to forestry, but we have come a long way since then. Anyone who has seen recent plantings and forestry redevelopments will acknowledge that the landscape is being looked after far better, and we can take that principle further.

I have been quickly turning the pages of the strategy document, trying to get to grips with it. The success of forestry in Scotland depends on wider economic circumstances and external forces such as the strength of sterling, which leads to cheap imports that our industry must compete against, and the cost of road fuel. Both those factors will influence the Executive's ability to deliver the strategy successfully. Is the Executive considering those matters and putting pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that we can deliver a successful forestry strategy in Scotland? If there are inappropriate fiscal policies, the best strategy in the world on paper will be difficult to deliver in practice.

There is more to the issue than the Chancellor of the Exchequer in London. Factors that extend well beyond the European Union affect our industry. A huge volume of timber is becoming available in Russia and the Baltic states, where labour is cheap, there are no controls over felling, transport is less of a problem and people are desperate to get foreign exchange at almost any price. It is virtually a dumped commodity that is coming on to the market—at least in some cases—and that is why timber prices have collapsed in recent years, which is a big problem.

Having said that, I and the other UK forestry ministers—Elliot Morley, Christine Gwyther and whoever will be in charge of forestry in Northern Ireland in due course—talk to our colleagues in the Treasury about relevant aspects of fiscal policy. However, I am sure that members do not expect me to go into details about that now.

You can if you wish.

You said that there were many representations in response to the consultation exercise from the industry and from the environmental sector. That is reflected in your two external assessors, one of whom represents the industry and the other of whom is an environmentalist. What priority is being given to rural development and community forestry? I can find only one and a half pages in this 84-page document that refer to that. I accept that threads of that aspect of forestry run throughout the document, but I can find only one mention of community aspirations and developing communities.

As you acknowledge, community development runs throughout the document, and it needs to. As forestry minister, it is my job to ensure that rural development runs through all aspects of forestry policy. The Forestry Commission regards that as a major priority, as do Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise.

Historically, the initial priority of the Forestry Commission after the first world war was timber production. About 20 years ago, environmental issues started coming on to the agenda, and we have learned a lot in those years. I understand Mr Munro's earlier comments, but I suspect that community issues have come on to the agenda more recently, in the past five years or so. The volume of words, so to speak, in the document is partly a reflection of that, and I suspect that we have most to learn about those issues.

Minister, can you give us some clarification about the timetable that governs the strategy? I note that the deadline for responses is June 2000 and that you intend to publish an action plan on the forestry industry cluster by October. Will a revised strategy be published following the consultation on the draft strategy? If so, is it likely to be published in October or sooner?

We are committed to publishing the formally adopted strategy this autumn. As members acknowledged already, the consultation exercise has been fairly protracted, with the stage 1 document, meetings and consultations. We are now entering the final stage.

It has not been just a cosmetic exercise—we really want to listen to people's views on these issues. There is not much time left, as I have just been reminded that the deadline is 6 June. At that stage, we will distil the points that have come in and tie them in with the draft strategy, formally adopt a strategy and that will be that.

On the basis of your previous answer to Irene McGugan, you may well strengthen the community aspects of the strategy.

Sure.

I have now had a chance to flick through the 84-page document—

I am impressed.

I refer to my earlier question about Durris, which I want to widen out, because it is a major issue. We talked about forests in the Highlands and Islands, and you mentioned the fact that you wanted to talk about woods and forests that are closer to urban centres, so I will use the example of Aberdeen.

On page 35 of the document, you say:

"There is a clear need to widen opportunities for woodland access especially by bringing woodland nearer to people".

I am not quite sure what that means, although I thought of Macbeth—woods to Dunsinane; but never mind. [Laughter.]

That came to a bad end.

Your priorities for action include:

"To create opportunities to enjoy trees, woods and forests

- Provide woodland recreation opportunities near towns.

- Improve availability of information about opportunities."

A priority is the peaceful enjoyment of woodland that is close to cities.

When I was flicking through the 84-page document, I tried to find references to commercial developments that are not related to woodland, but I could not find any. I am thinking particularly of the commercial four-wheel drive enterprise in Durris forest as an example. The closest to that is found on page 24, when you talk about niche markets and non-timber sources of income. Paragraph 2.2.23 is the only one that refers to that:

"Woods and forests can also generate income from non-timber sources. The market for some activities, such as game shooting, is well developed. Others, like the sale of permissions for filming, for military training, or for various sporting events are necessarily opportunistic."

I accept all of that—it is good. However, while I have had only a few minutes, I cannot find anything in the document that relates specifically to commercial developments, such as the four-wheel drive enterprise in Durris forest.

I know that you would not give spending commitments, but I would like a commitment from you to consult if you are to go down that route, although I am pleased that the document does not say that you will do so. However, if you go down that route, please will you give your commitment to consult local community councils and local communities? Such commercial developments are a major issue in my constituency and have implications for elsewhere.

I think that I have gathered your point that it is a major issue in your constituency.

We have all picked that up.

But it has implications for elsewhere.

I am sure that colleagues on the committee from all parties will appreciate the Executive's land reform agenda, which is about access to the countryside, including access to forests—we are keen on appropriate, responsible access to the countryside. Indeed, Forest Enterprise has an excellent record of encouraging recreational use of forests, with car parks, forest trails, orienteering and a range of initiatives to encourage people to enjoy their forests. That is good, I am keen to see it develop and I would like private owners to take up similar policies.

Mr Rumbles mentioned a particular type of alternative use.

As an example.

There might be areas where such a use is appropriate. I am not saying whether Durris falls into that category, because I honestly do not know enough about it. Your specific question was, "Should there be appropriate consultation?" There certainly should be.

Is that a commitment to carry out consultation if the developments that we have discussed occur?

I can give commitments only on behalf of Forest Enterprise, which we own.

That is all that I am asking for.

What the private owner of a forest does is up to them, but for the enterprises that we have talked about, there should be wider consultation involving local authorities, for example—it sounds like a change of use of land.

But there is a commitment to consult people—in your document, you are committed to do so.

I can commit myself only for future developments; there is not a lot I can do if something is already going on.

I was asking about future developments.

If there are no other questions, I thank the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs and his team for answering a fair number of questions. We might wish to return to some of the points that we have discussed, either collectively or individually, after we have had time to digest the report. It seems that two broad possibilities are before us. We might want to take a stance on the consultation document. Alternatively, we could wait until the public consultation is completed and request a report on that consultation from the Scottish Executive. It is the latter approach that we have taken in the past, on similar documents. Do members have any strong feelings on that issue?

The view has been expressed by several members that we would want more detailed consideration of the strategy. Judging by the comments that have been made, I think that there is general welcome for the principles included in the strategy. I wonder whether we might want to make our consideration of it part of our future business for a later agenda.

Fair enough. Would members like to consider that under future business?

Members indicated agreement.

The convener has returned to the room at an appropriate moment, as we are just about to move on to item 2.

Good.