FORESTRY COMMISSION (SURPLUS STOCKS, SALES) (Hansard, 19 December 1944)

§ Mr. Ness Edwards (Caerphilly)
I want to raise a matter, of which I have given notice, dealing with the disposal of certain stocks by the Forestry Commission. I am 1707 pleased that we have started this Debate so early in the afternoon, so that ample opportunity will be given to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) to make a full reply on what I regard as a very grave situation. On 6th June I put down two Questions to the right hon. and gallant Member, as representing the Forestry Commissioners. The first dealt with the subsidy paid to private landowners to assist them to plant their lands, and the second with the manner in which surplus trees were disposed of by the Forestry Commission and the terms. To those Questions I had very evasive replies. I quote from HANSARD: Sir G. COURTHOPE: At the present time there are no seedling trees in the Forestry Commission's nurseries surplus to their requirements. I would remind the House that in a Report by the Forestry Commission, signed by, among others, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, we find this statement: The area planted during the first winter of the war was but little less than in 1938, but it has gradually diminished to about half the normal figure. Then there is this pregnant sentence: Inevitably this has entailed the destruction of much valuable planting stock, which became too overgrown to retain in the nursery, and merely encumbered the ground. That is at a time when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tells me there is no surplus stock.

§ Colonel Sir George Courthope (Rye)
Of seedlings.

§ Mr. Edwards
I am obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for that intervention, because during that season over 4,000,000 seedlings were sold by the Forestry Commission. I wonder why this reply was so evasive. Let us deal with the second part of the reply. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said: When there are surplus nursery stocks these are not disposed of to the public but to the nursery trade at prices which are agreed at annual meetings with the trade associations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1944; Vol. 400, c. 1217.] I want to submit to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that that really was not answering my Question. I asked him what were the terms. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman evades the Ques- 1708 tion, and I must say that this evasion, as I regarded it at the time, led me to the conclusion that it was a matter which required further inquiry, and, consequently, on 20th June, the following Question appears in HANSARD: Mr. NESS EDWARDS asked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what was the last date when prices were agreed with the trade associations; …. I had this reply: Sir G. COURTHOPE: The last dates when prices of Forestry Commission surplus nursery stocks were agreed with the Trade Associations was the 18th November, 1943. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman goes on to say: It was recorded at the time that such prices were not for publication. I want to know whether or not, if the Forestry Commission makes a deal outside this House, they have the right to refuse to disclose to this House at what price State property is being sold to private interests. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in my view, was being unduly evasive in using an excuse of that sort. He went on to say: As a trading Department, the Forestry Commission cannot therefore disclose such prices but I shall be happy to hand a schedule of the prices to the hon. Member for his own information. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did that but, across the top of it, was marked, very plainly and underlined, "Not for publication." I want to submit to the House that there was a reason why these prices should not be made public, a reason in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is implicated.

§ Sir G. Courthope
Personally?

§ Mr. Edwards
Personally, yes. I asked who, at the meeting referred to, made these prices, who represented the Commission and who represented the trade association, and what did the right hon. Gentleman say? He said this: As for meeting referred to, the Commission was represented by the Chairman, one other Commissioner and the two assistant Commissioners. Who was the Commissioner? I asked for that, because there is more than one Commissioner. There is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; there is my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) and there is the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price). There are 1709 three, at least, that I know. I ask who represented the Forestry Commission, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman again evades it, and leaves me in doubt and fails to give me the information to which I am entitled. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says: The trade associations concerned were the Horticultural Trades Association represented by their president and other members, and the Scottish Seed and Nursery Trade Association, also represented by members."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June; Vol. 401, c. 43.] But I asked who they were. Why is it, so far as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is concerned, that this information, perfectly innocent and legitimate information which this House is entitled to have, was not given in the reply? I did not get the names of the persons, nor did I get the prices made public. This was the second attempt, so again, in my view, the Forestry Commission and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman more or less evaded an issue which I wanted to bring before this House. However, it was true—and I say this in fairness to the Forestry Commission—that I wrote to the Chairman and he supplied to me the names of the members of the trade associations—I take it with the knowledge of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. But he did not supply the names of the Commissioners who attended that very fateful meeting, when these prices were fixed for the disposal of the surplus stocks in the possession of the Forestry Commission.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rye has sent me the prices, marked "Not for publication." On Tuesday, 5th December, the same question, about a certain category of trees, is put by an hon. Gentleman on that side of the House, and he is given the price which is refused to us. Perhaps I had better quote from HANSARD. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) had this Question down: To ask the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether the Forestry Commission has entered into any agreement with the nursery trade for the sale of surplus seedling trees; and if so what price per 1,000 is being charge to the trade far two year larch seedlings and what is the cost per 1,000 of raising such seedlings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December, 1944; Vol. 406, c. 394.] The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not tell the hon. Member for Sunderland that the prices were confidential. He gave the prices, and he gave the price 1710 for these seedlings—1,000 seedlings two year larch, including both the European and Japanese species—as 50s. per 1,000, but what I want to know is this, and I ask your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on this point. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has disclosed in this House, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Sunderland, information that was only supplied to me as "Not for publication." I want to ask you, Sir, whether or not I am justified in using in this House a document marked "Not for publication," some of which has already been quoted by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and whether I should be entitled to quote from that statement submitted to me.

§ Sir G. Courthope
I have no objection.

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that, as the document has been made public, it can no longer be regarded as private.

§ Mr. Edwards
I would be glad if someone could enlighten me why this document was marked "Not for publication" before the Question was put down by my hon. Friend opposite.

§ Sir G. Courthope
I will tell my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Edwards
There will be ample time for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell me. What does it disclose? Two-year Scotch pine have been selling at 15s. per 1,000 to the trade. Two plus two has been selling for 70s. per 1,000—less than 1d. each. Some of these, I suppose, will be merged into the Christmas tree trade, and trees which have been sold for a penny each are now being sold in the shops, around which the soldiers' children will dance, for 5s. and 6s. each. I am not saying that the whole of this trade is in this category. I am saying that some of it will be merged into that category. I have some further information about the Christmas tree trade passed to me from another source. Take the prices of Japanese larch—one year's seedlings, 20s. a thousand; two plus one and two plus two, 75s. a thousand. I hope that the House will notice—as I am bringing in this in an interesting instance later on—that the price of Japanese larch, two-year seedlings, plus two-years transplant, are 75s. per thousand. There are one or two other interesting things. Norway spruce, all sizes, are 60s. a thousand or .7 of 1d. each. Those gentlemen who 1711 have been planting their woodlands and who have been buying trees from the ring will know what prices they have been paying. I have heard of cases of land-owners paying as much as £10 a thousand for trees supplied through this ring.
I will follow it one step further. I have quoted the prices for these nursery seedlings and nursery stock that have been fixed by the Forestry Commission and the trade association. Let me give an example of what has taken place. An hon. Member on this side of the House has given me permission to use both his name and his documents. I refer to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Jackson). This hon. Member wrote to the Forestry Commission, after all this talk about surplus trees and stories about trees being burnt, to ask if they would supply him with trees for transplanting. He had this reply: With regard to your inquiry re larch plants, it is regretted that the Department is unable to supply and it is suggested that one of the following firms may be able to meet your requirements. Three firms are named and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, being a middle-course man in many things, wrote to the middle firm, and the middle firm is the English Forestry Association, Ltd., of Reading, of which, I think, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows something.

§ Sir G. Courthope
I am its chairman.

§ Mr. Edwards
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is the chairman of the directors of this private firm to which the Commission, on which he sits in virtue of representing this House, advises a potential customer to apply in order to buy larch trees. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor sent an order to the firm of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He asked for 2,000 larch trees. This English Forestry Association, Ltd., has its place in Reading. Within a week he receives, not from Reading, but from Cowbridge in South Wales, 2,000 larch trees by passenger train, having been gathered, cleaned, packed and conveyed to the railway station by the Forestry Commission. A few days later he receives an invoice from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's firm for £17 10s. for 2,000 larch trees. He does not complain. He pays the, bill, and eventually we begin to 1712 look at the problem. What is the problem? It is that the Horticultural Association's representatives and the Forestry Commission's representatives have agreed upon an uneconomic price for these articles, and the lower the price, the higher is the profit that can be made by the firm forming this horticultural ring. I am talking about the period when this transaction took place, whatever has happened since, and I should imagine that there has been a fluttering in the dovecots since notice of raising this question was given.

§ Mr. Rhys Davies (Westhoughton)
This is very interesting. My hon. Friend said that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Jackson) paid £17 10s. for 2,000 trees. Can he tell us how much that association paid to the Forestry Commission for the same trees?

§ Mr. Edwards
I asked my hon. Friends when I mentioned the prices of larch trees to keep the matter in mind.

§ Mr. Davies
Are they the same?

§ Mr. Edwards
Seventy-five shillings per 1,000, £7 10s. for 2,000, and the association sends a bill for £17 10s.—a profit of over 140 per cent. for trees they have never seen; which they have never handled, for an order which they have never solicited. At an expense of, I suppose, two or three 2½d. stamps, they pull in £10 [An HON. MEMBER: "Like the bankers."] Bankers do not sit in this House and represent their own interests on Commissions, appointed by this House, and that is the position of my right hon. and gallant Friend. This is not a small thing. Let me quote the size of this trade. In the season 1941–42 there were 159,000 of these trees sold by the Forestry Commission to the ring. No one else could buy them. The public could not buy them, They could only be brought through the ring. In 1942–43 there were over 3,500,000 and in the following season there were over 5,000,000. How much of this was passed direct to the public without the participation of the firms, the firms sending the invoices and scooping the pool? What is the size of that trade in which the firm do not interfere at all except to pass on the order and to receive the cheque back from the customer?
1713 In the 1942–43 season there were over 500,000 trees and last season there were nearly 1,250,000 trees, gathered, cleaned, packed and despatched by the Forestry Commission, and private firms gather the swag, or take the cream off the milk. I was interested to find out how it had been arranged and I obtained a list of the representatives of the horticultural association or firm, who met the Forestry Commission. Lo and behold, I found that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman sits on one side of the table, representing this House, and his general manager sits on the other side representing his firm. [An HON. MEMBER: "A nice arrangement."] It may be a nice arrangement, but I want to submit to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is not the kind of arrangement that ought to have the approval of this House, and in view of the fact that, as the result of that arrangement, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's firm makes such a substantial profit without rendering any service, that it is an arrangement which ought to come to an end very quickly, in the interests of this House.
Let me go one step further. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has also been a party to the issuing of another report—the Post-War Forest Policy (Private Woodlands) Report issued in January, 1944. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is therefore a party to saying that one of the uncertain factors of the future causing private landowners to be cautious as to what they do, is "uncertainty as to the rates of wages" and that the "cost of plants" has been another disturbing factor. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman admits and agrees with this, but his firm has been responsible, as a result of an arrangement to which he has been a party as representing this House, for making 140 per cent. profit on a transaction they have never seen. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot come to this House and say that the prices of the future are uncertain and then, behind the scenes—and I say advisedly "behind the scenes"—fixing a price——

§ Mr. Speaker
I really think the hon. Member is going a little outside the bounds of Order. On public grounds the Forestry Commission may be attacked but I do not think one can attack the right hon. and gallant Minister in his private capacity as chairman of a company.

§ Mr. Edwards
I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to do anything that is unfair. What I want is that the House shall have before it, very clearly, the facts of this case, and the House must then draw its own conclusions. I think the facts are clear. This House has appointed representatives on the Forestry Commission——

§ Mr. Speaker
Yes, I agree, but one must not impute unworthy motives to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as the chairman of a private company.

§ Mr. Edwards
I do not want to impute motives, I want the facts themselves to disclose the state of things, and I do not wish unnecessarily to attack the personality of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. There are the facts, a state of facts to which this House ought not to continue to give its approval. The House is as much responsible as the individual who represents the House.
I have here the bill. What did the Forestry Commission charge for gathering all these trees, cleaning them, bundling them, packing them, and conveying them to the railway station? What they charged was 4s. 6d. for 2,000 trees. I want to submit that the Forestry Commission is not adequately representing the interests of the House in this matter—a sum of 4s. 6d. for gathering 2,000 trees, digging them up, cleaning them, tying them up in bundles and conveying them from the nurseries—some miles, if I remember the exact location of the place—to the station in Cow-bridge and putting them on a passenger train to Ross-on-Wye. I do not want to impute any wrong motives to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I am satisfied that this is a case in which this House is entitled to a full and complete reply. The facts, as disclosed, are extremely disturbing and I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to satisfy us on the question. One other point before I sit down. In reply to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor to-day——

§ Mr. Beverley Baxter (Wood Green)
May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? Why 4s. 6d.? That seems to be an interesting and puzzling amount. Is it really put down on an invoice that for cleaning and distributing 2,000 trees a charge of 4s. 6d. is made? How did it appear?

§ Mr. Edwards
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I thought I had made it clear. This is what appears on the invoice sent to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brecon and Radnor: 2,000 Japanese larch, two year and one year—£17 10s. Packing—4s. 6d. Packing was not done—I must be careful—by the English Forestry Association Ltd., but by the Forestry Commission"— Carriage to railway—16s. making a total of £18 10s. 6d. that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brecon and Radnor paid for these 2,000 larch trees and, according to the answer given in this House by the representative of the Forestry Commission, all that the firm paid to the Forestry Commission was £7 10s.

§ Mr. Speaker
I think the hon. Gentleman has not quite finished his speech.

§ Colonel Clarke
I wanted to ask a question, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that these were two-year and one-year seedlings. I presume, therefore, that they would be only one inch or two inches high, quite small things, and would require very little packing or anything else.

§ Mr. Edwards
I am not concerned with how big or how small they were.

§ Colonel Clarke
It would make a considerable difference to the price. Trees are all prices. If these were only one-half inch to two inches high, 4s. 6d. might be very reasonable.

§ Mr. Edwards
There may be substance in what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, but one has to remember this, that £7 10s. worth of these seedlings were packed together but by the time they reached Ross-on-Wye they were worth £17 10s., and to cover all this, the charge was only 4s. 6d. I think I had better leave the position where it is. I am very anxious that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Rye shall have ample opportunity for replying, and I hope that he can satisfy this House that its interests are being adequately taken care of on the Forestry Commission.

§ Mr. Storey (Sunderland)
I do not want to intervene on the somewhat personal question that has arisen between the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) and the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Court-hope) who represents the Forestry Commission. I think that my hon. Friend has performed a useful service in calling attention to the prices at which trees are being sold to estate foresters from the Forestry Commission surplus. I want to confine myself not to the price which is being charged by the nursery trade, but to the price which the Forestry Commission are themselves charging to the nursery trade. The hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate called attention to a Question which I asked recently, and which elicited the reply from my right hon. and gallant Friend that two-year larch seedlings were being sold at 50s. per 1,000. That, I would submit to the House, is too high a price. It may seem a low price compared with the price which is being charged to private foresters but when the Royal English Forestry Society tell me that these seedlings can be raised at a cost of 20s. per 1,000 I suggest that 50s. per 1,000 is too big a price for the Forestry Commission to charge and, moreover, one which is not in the best interests of our national forestry.
The Forestry Commission has two main functions. Its principal function is to create our national forests, and its second function is to encourage estate forestry. The chief practical aid which the Commission has been able to give in the past is a planting grant of £2 to £4 per acre, which is inadequate. It is true that the Commission has made proposals which, should they be adopted by the Government, would be of great benefit to private forestry, and it is also true that these proposals still await adoption by the Government. I submit to the House that in the meantime the Forestry Commission should do everything it can to assist the private forester. It is in the country's interest that it should do so. It seems to me, therefore, that one thing it can do is to dispose of its surplus trees to private foresters at the lowest possible price. If it can raise trees at 20s. per 1,000 [...] should pass them on to the private forester at cost price, plus something for handling.

§ Mr. J. J. Davidson (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Direct.

§ Mr. Storey
Either direct or through the nursery trade. If the Commission is going to charge 50s. per 1,000 for trees which can be raised at £1 per 1,000 it is easy to see that the planting grant is absorbed by the excess charge which the Forestry Commission is making to the private forester. I suggest that the Commission should definitely sell its surplus trees, either direct to the private forester or through the nursery trade, and in doing so should charge no more than the cost of producing those trees, plus a reasonable charge for handling them. The proper way for that to be done is for prices to be fixed in consultation between the Forestry Commission, the nursery trade and representatives of the forestry societies. If that were done I think the Forestry Commission would be doing useful work by helping private foresters to replant in advance of the time when a more adequate grant will be made available, as we hope it will, by the State.

§ Colonel Sir George Courthope (Rye)
I would like to say at once that I think the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), in spite of the little stones he has thrown at my head, has rendered a useful service in raising this question, because neither the Forestry Commission nor anyone else concerned in this business is satisfied with the prices which are now being charged. In order to clear up the situation a little I want to begin by explaining what is obviously not clear to some Members in the House, namely, what is meant by the terms "seedlings" and "transplants." A seedling is a tiny tree growing in a seed bed, and seldom exceeds four inches in height for each year's growth. When it is transplanted into a nursery it becomes a transplant and a "2 year, 1" and, in due course, a "2 year, 2," if it is not out in the woods in the meantime. During that time, there is a good deal of handling and a certain amount of loss, and all the time there is continued exposure to the chances of the weather and the many pests which attack young trees. I wanted to clear up that point because of the question which was put just now, by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), about 2 year transplants which might be only a few inches in 1718 height. The 2 year transplant of most varieties, is probably anything from one foot in height, and have been transplanted two years previously.
I hope the hon. Member for Caerphilly will not think that by dealing with the methods adopted by the Forestry Commission in connection with transplants, I am trying to evade the personal issue. When the Forestry Commission was first started, rather more than 25 years ago, an informal agreement was made with the nursery trade, which was a well-organised body, that, primarily, the plants in the Forestry Commission's nurseries which were surplus to requirements should be offered, in the first place, to the nursery trade. If the Forestry Commission started dealing direct with estates, and selling surpluses to them, it was thought that this would soon break the nursery trade, and the view taken was that so long as the nursery trade were reasonable, and played the game, they should have the handling of surplus plants. There was another reason why the Forestry Commission would have found it difficult to sell direct to woodland owners and foresters. It was that although the Commission might have large surpluses of one variety, it could not ran its nurseries to ensure a saleable surplus of every variety. Questions have been asked in the past by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Jackson) about the charge in certain areas, and I had to tell him that during the two years concerned there was no surplus of the particular varieties he mentioned. This system worked quite well till the beginning of the war, and I do not think there was any very general complaint about it or about prices. It had always been arranged that the Forestry Commission should sell its surplus plants to the trade at the same rate as that at which the firms in the trade agreed to interchange plants with each other. The nursery trade have what is called a wholesale rate, by which a firm which has a surplus sells to another firm in the same organisation which is short of trees. The Forestry Commission has always sold surpluses at those same rates to the trade.
The war, however, caused a great deal of difficulty and disturbance. A great many plants have had to be destroyed, particularly those of a more ornamental nature. A great many growing stocks 1719 which were in excess of requirements, also had to be destroyed and that, naturally, put up to a considerable extent the price which certain Lurseries had to charge for the plants they had, which were saleable, if they were to avoid a heavy loss. The nursery trade brought their agreed prices to the Forestry Commission, and during the last two years, the Commissioners have expressed the view that those prices were too high. We did not have a selling organisation, and we could not form one in a hurry, so we accepted the continuance of the old arrangement for one year only. The prices mentioned by the hon. Member were mostly within the last two years. I do not think they were recorded until then, and two years ago we were given to understand that they were for one year only. At that time, there was a general hope that the war would not last quite so long as has been the case, but the difficult period has continued, and again, this autumn, prices were brought by the nursery trade to the Forestry Commissioners and, in many instances, were considered excessive. On 13th October we again met them and stated that we should have to consider whether a new agreement was necessary because we thought the trade were charging too much, not only for plants they got from the Forestry Commission, but for plants which they grew themselves.
The Forestry Commission stated three principles which I would like to read to the House if I am not wearying hon. Members. They said: The Forestry Commissioners have reviewed their nursery policy and have put the following conclusions before the Horticultural Trade Association:

(1) The Commissioners regard the supply of adequate numbers of plants of good quality and at reasonable prices as essential to the development of forestry.

(2) It is important, in order to secure the rapid habilitation of woodlands, that no plants which are suitable for use should be destroyed.

(3) The Commissioners do not desire, or intend, to participate in the general nursery trade provided the two preceding desiderata can be otherwise secured."

The representatives of the trade were asked to come to another meeting which took place this morning. I am very glad it did take place, because it has cleared up the situation a little and has enabled me to deal to-night with one or two points 1720 of the hon. Member's statement which, otherwise, I might have hesitated to deal with. One was the question of the price list—the wholesale prices agreed by the trade for the transfer of surplus stocks between themselves from one firm to another. They have never published them. The Forestry Commissioners only know of them because they are brought to us, and we have agreed to use those same prices in transferring our surplus to the trade. But as a result of this morning's meeting, we have been able to arrange the publication not only of these prices but of the schedule of retail prices under which members of the trade have undertaken to sell to the public, both their own stocks and the stocks they get from the Forestry Commission. That is a thing for which we pressed.
We have also arranged with them that there shall be a further meeting between the members of the Horticultural Trade Association and the Forestry Commission to try to provide some better means by which the public may be supplied as cheaply as possible with the surplus plants from the Forestry Commission. It is easy to see how difficult it would be, and what confusion would be caused, if the Forestry Commission were selling their surplus to some trade firms, at a price quite different from that which the trade firms were charging for their own products. That would want a good bit of consideration, because the Forestry Commission do not, as long as the trade plays the game, wish to put the nursery trade into the bankruptcy court by competing with it in the open market. That would be very undesirable.
In the ordinary course of working, one is bound to provide for possible losses, and so on, in the sowing of seed and the lining out of seedlings. The result is that in certain varieties there is a surplus in most years and during the last two or three years the Forestry Commission have deliberately increased the surplus, so as to provide a large stock ready for planting at any time that the war might come to an end and labour become available, for planting on a more extensive scale. We have increased our nursery acreage from 1,000 acres to 1,500 acres at the very time when, owing to the shortage of labour, our planting programmes were being reduced and, as a result, we have at the present moment—and shall have again next year and every year until the 1721 war ends—a very considerable stock which is surplus to our own requirements. That is inevitable. Part of that surplus stock, which is passed on to the trade in the way I have described, has led to these complaints and, as I have said, the Forestry Commissioners think that the prices in many cases are excessive.
During the planting season 1942–43, 2,250,000 seedlings and 1,500,000 transplants were sold to the trade by the Forestry Commission, and in 1943–44 the number had grown to 3,333,000 seedlings and 2,000,000 transplants. The wholesale or retail prices which are in force During the current planting season are to be published, as I have said. The greater the publicity given to that fact, the more I shall be pleased, because there may be some firms who will not be guided by their Association and may attempt to make undue profits.
I think I have made it clear that the Commissioners' main function in this province is to assure that adequate plants at reasonable prices are made available for planting. In their view, this can best be achieved by the co-ordination of all requirements and all sources of plant supplies—then I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). In future we propose that the private planter shall take part in the discussions between the Forestry Commission and the trade. I have not the slightest doubt that the private planters will be drawn from the forestry societies, who are best qualified to deal with the subject. It is, obviously, a difficult problem to have two different sets of prices, as there will be, but it is one that we intend to tackle and overcome if we can.
I come now to the point with which I, personally, am concerned. I hope the House will accept from me that I had not the least idea that the English Forestry Association's name was being suggested as a suitable supplier to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor. This was originally a co-operative society formed amongst landowners by a well known forester and I have been a member of it ever since it started. It was formed to try to maintain supplies of plants for woodland owners. It is true that it became a private company, the reason being that so long as it was a registered co-operative society, no one could subscribe for more than 200 shares, and there were certain 1722 members of the society, of whom I was one, who were prepared to put up more money as we saw a future in it. It is still a member of the Horticultural Trade Association and is bound by their scale of both wholesale and retail prices. The £17 10s, was the minimum price at which the rules of the Horticultural Trade Association allowed its members to retail that particular variety. I was shown by the general manager, who told me what had happened, a letter in which he protested that the price was excessive and asked for sanction for the association to reduce the price to what they regarded as a reasonable figure. It was refused and, as members of the Horticultural Trade Association, the price fixed as the minimum was charged.

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
It is blackmailing the public.

§ Sir G. Courthope
I agree that prices are much too high. My Association and I have protested more than once, but we are not in a position to break away at a moment's notice and sell nothing but what we have grown ourselves because, like others, we are very short of certain varieties. But I hope that a more reasonable arrangement will be made. One must, however, take into account not only the actual cost of producing 1,000 larch seedlings, but the cost of producing many thousands of other things which have to be destroyed because there is no market for them. If a firm took no account of its losses, whatever the proportion of loss might be, they would soon be in bankruptcy. That is the excuse put forward for charging a range of prices which, I admit, is too high. The hon. Member complained that he could get no information as to the surplus of seedlings. They are not saleable in June, and one does not know in the least what will be the production and what kind of stock they are likely to get.

§ Sir G. Courthope
I was dealing with the question of the supply of seedlings, and the answer that I gave on behalf of the Department on 6th June was that we had no surplus to dispose of. By the autumn we had a considerable quantity—several millions—and we have an even larger quantity now.

§ Mr. Edwards
Not at £17 10s.

§ Sir G. Courthope
The hon. Member will see the published prices when they come out. I do not think they will give him any cause for dissatisfaction. He asked me who was the Forestry Commissioner other than the Chairman. Mr. Taylor is a technical Commissioner in the whole-time service of the State. I do not think any of the unpaid Commissioners were present on that occasion. The hon. Member thought I had been evasive. I think I have explained the cause of the evasiveness—that these were figures arrived at between different firms in the trade and, though they were in my hands, I was not in a position to publish them until I got permission, which I only got this morning.

§ Mr. Edwards
Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman explain why he refused the prices to me, and gave them to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey)?

§ Sir G. Courthope
I had quite forgotten that I gave my hon. Friend this information. I refused to disclose the schedule of prices, which I had in my hand, and which was marked "Not for publication." I may have given the hon. Member an individual quotation out of it. I do not like figures which are not for publication. I think they should all be published in the widest possible way. That, I think, is the whole story. I am not happy about my own personal position, but I think I should be wrong in retiring from the chairmanship, and to some extent the control, of a body which for a good many years has been doing useful work. I hope there will never be any reason in future for the complaint to be made of the profits that they are making in selling Government stock.