HC Deb 03 February 1949 vol 460 cc1813-4
11. Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many licences for £5 worth of timber per month for use for agricultural purposes were issued to farmers in 1948; how many were refused; why it is necessary for each application to be submitted in triplicate; and whether he is now prepared to authorise the issue of licences that will be valid until the control of timber is abolished, so as to save the time and trouble involved in applying for a new licence every six months.

Mr. H. Wilson

The number of licences for timber to a monthly value of £5 issued to farmers for agricultural purposes during 1948 was 17,266. So far as is known, no applications from farmers actively engaged in agriculture have been refused, though applicants have not necessarily been granted licences for the full amounts applied for. Applications for timber licences are required in triplicate for administrative and statistical reasons. but I am hoping to simplify the procedure in the near future. As regards the last part of the Question, the issue of new licences at six-monthly periods is necessary in order to check the quantities actually acquired and to ensure that the conditions which justify the issue of the licence remain operative.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

Since something like 17,200 or 17,300 licences were asked for during 1948 and none was refused, does it not seem unnecessary to require that these licences should be applied for at intervals of six months? Could there not be a longer period than that?

Mr. Wilson

I have already made it clear to the hon. Member that this procedure is being investigated with a view to simplification, and I should be glad if the hon. Member would leave it until I make a further announcement.

Colonel Dower

Will the President of the Board of Trade consider the extension of the period for which these licences are granted?

Mr. Wilson

I said we were considering simplifying the procedure, not simplifying the form.

Mr. Drayson

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the greatest simplifications would be to abolish the Timber Control altogether, as it is now quite unnecessary?

Mr. Wilson

I have always made it clear to the House that I am trying to simplify the application of the Timber Control, but to abolish it would be a great injury to the national interest, involving the loss, on much less important and comparatively frivolous uses, of timber urgently required for other purposes.