HC Deb 29 March 1961 vol 637 cc1485-96

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann (Taunton)

I am very glad tonight to have the opportunity of raising the question of afforestation in the National Parks areas, which to those who are concerned with amenity is a matter of national concern. It is a matter of special concern to the West Country where there are two National Parks, Dartmoor and Exmoor, and of particular interest to my constituency which includes 75 per cent. of Exmoor.

I have one major point to make, which I shall make at the end of my speech, but, to lead up to it, I should like to describe the background of the matter. In the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, the use of any land for the purposes of agriculture and forestry is not deemed to involve development of the land. Proposals for afforestation, therefore, do not require planning permission. In the National Parks, of which there are ten in the United Kingdom, and especially in the National Parks of Dartmoor and Exmoor, the question of development of forestry has become a burning local issue.

The Minister of the day, in moving the Second Reading of the 1947 Bill, said that agriculture and forestry would always be the paramount form of activity and that he thought it right that that, and that alone, should be emphasised. There can be no quarrel with that statement. I firmly and absolutely support it. Indeed, I have every admiration for all those who resist encroachments upon the main purposes of the National Park areas, but, since those words were spoken in this House, the situation has changed. In those days the only people locally interested in forestry were the members of the Forestry Commission, which, clearly, is subject to control by the Government, and local landowners, who have always done such magnificent work in their localities. Today, there are proposals for large-scale afforestation by syndicates and other organisations.

This has come as a shock to the people who live in these areas. They can see the whole character of their localities changing at the option of strangers. Yet only recently the question has become whether the control is satisfactory and they have been powerless to affect the situation.

I say, in parentheses, that I have every sympathy for a landowner who wishes to resist additional forms of control. Goodness knows, we suffer today, even under a Conservative Government, from too many forms of control. None the less, I think that this is perhaps a situation where some form of control is necessary. The National Parks Commission thought so, also. It has spoken very strongly on this matter. To quote its eleventh Report, for the year ended 30th September, 1960, which was recently laid before this House: With the park planning authorities concerned, we had already given much time and thought to the problem posed by such large-scale private afforestation schemes, and we were much encouraged by the spontaneous and widespread concern for the National Parks. As the law now stands, the planting of trees is outside planning control, and it seemed to us, so far as the afforestation of previously unplanted land was concerned, the only satisfactory safeguard was some form of control. They made representations to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and represented that it was a matter of real urgency that a form of control should be introduced. We would not seek to maintain"— it says, that the designation of a National Park implies prohibition of afforestation in the area"— nor would I say so— nor that afforestation of necessity adversely affects the beauty of a landscape. But we do say that it is wrong in principle that it should be possible to change substantially the character of a landscape in a National Park, without affording those to whom the statutory responsibility of preserving the landscape has been entrusted any opportunity of considering the proposals. Those are certainly my views. Indeed, we do not see how it is possible to reconcile the absence of control with the duty laid upon the planning authority and upon ourselves by Parliament to secure the fulfilment of the objectives of preserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Parks and promoting their enjoyment by the public. These are very strong words and they reflect the very real concern in many of these areas and particularly, I would say, in and around my own constituency. I speak with experience in these matters. I have attended meetings of Exmoor bodies like the Exmoor Society and I have been astonished at the depth and intensity of feeling expressed by them.

I fully recognise that development of industry, new industry the forestry industry, in my constituency, and possibly in other parts of the West Country, would bring certain benefits. I admire the spirit of enterprise of those who are concerned in this matter, but there are also demerits. I do not know, quite frankly, whether there is a sufficient demand for the timber which these forests are to produce. Indeed, I wonder, particularly in view of Britain's association with the European Free Trade Area, whether this is, in fact, a commercial proposition at all. However, it is not a matter for us to decide tonight. Let us accept, on the one hand, that there are benefits, and that, on the other—and this is the view of local people—there are also demerits in the development of large-scale afforestation in these areas.

In a memorandum put out by the Standing Committee on National Parks of the Councils for the Preservation of Rural England and Wales, which contains many matters with which I agree and some with which I disagree, I say frankly to the House, these points are made, and I think that they sum up the case very clearly: The blanketing out of open combes and hillsides by plantations of conifers, the construction of hard roads and bridges in furtherance of forestry operations, would completely change the character of the area. Most true. The fenced-in plantations of conifers, with the destruction of the natural flora"— Again, this must be true. and taken for forestry is land lost to agriculture". That, again, is true, and it seems ironical that this should be so in days when the Government with the support of Members on both sides of this House and representing hill areas are endeavouring to develop agriculture in those areas and spending a great deal of money on it. I know this to be so from my own experience: Even the highest land on Exmoor provides summer grazing, and the Moor supports huge flocks of sheep, which provide plentiful meat and wool of a quality widely renowned. It goes on to talk of wild life, the ponies and deer which are a part of the area. There can be no question at all that were afforestation carried on on a very great scale all these traditional things would be affected and affected seriously.

I feel that the truth of this matter is not black and white. I have never felt that. It is very largely grey. There are advantages and disadvantages and one has to balance them, but I feel that there are substantial misunderstandings in this matter. I do not believe that those who are in favour of this large-scale afforestation have presented their case adequately from the public relations point of view to the people living locally, and I think that it is not unreasonable that people living locally should resent on the whole the incursion by strangers into their area.

If the House accepts it is right that there should be some form of control, that the local people should have a right to control development in their area, the question is: what sort of control should there be? I suggest that it should be control only by people living locally, with the normal right of appeal to the Minister and should apply only to hitherto unplanted land in the National Parks.

I had proposed to bring in a Bill a short time ago to give effect to just such ideas. This plea for control should not be regarded as the thin end of the wedge for bringing agriculture fully under planning control. I should be very strongly opposed to that. This is a planning problem, and it is unique.

The National Parks Commission and those of us who have been interested in the question have made representations to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government on this matter over a period. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who has always listened to me with great courtesy, patience and understanding. In a Written Answer on 27th July, 1960, which appears in column 115 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, my hon. Friend said that discussions were taking place with the various interests concerned in the matter. At the end of January it reached.

In answer to a Parliamentary Question was announced that agreement had been tabled by me we were given on 14th February a full description of the agreement, which I should like to go into. Paragraph 3 says: In order to try to avoid conflict between the needs of forestry and the preservation and enhancement of natural beauty, the parties to this agreement"— they are the Timber Growers' Organisation, the Country Landowners' Association, the Forestry Commission and the National Parks Commission— believe that the closest co-operation should be maintained between those concerned with afforestation and those responsible for accomplishing the purposes for which National Parks have been established. What could be better than that? It is an admirable statement of purpose.

It is intended to have a survey to designate those areas upon which trees could be planted. It would also cover those areas which are perhaps not so likely to have trees planted upon them, and those areas which it is now quite unlikely will have trees planted upon them. It is a very sensible plan to get all the interests concerned together to discuss the matter.

Paragraph 8 of the agreement says: Pending the completion of the surveys, which must, of necessity, take a considerable time"— that is one of the troubles— the Timber Growers' Organisation and the Country Landowners' Association will advise their members to consult the Park Planning Authorities about their afforestation proposals. Arrangements for such consultation will be made locally in each Park. So far, so good.

Paragraph 7 contains this assurance: In case of disagreement at any stage, the good offices of the Government Departments concerned will be available". The memorandum goes on to make clear, if it should be necessary, that these arrangements will not apply outside the National Parks, nor do I believe that it is necessary that they should.

I can sum up my feeling on the question of the voluntary agreement as follows. As a matter of principle, I am strongly in favour of voluntary agreements as opposed to legislation. I believe that we suffer too much from legislation in the House and in the country as a whole. I have always believed that a voluntary agreement is infinitely better than legislation. I am most anxious to see the agreement working successfully.

There are people who condemn the agreement. I believe it is quite wrong to do so until it has had an opportunity to work and been given a fair trial. I am anxious to see it improved, if possible, because failure will be at the cost of the National Parks and not at the cost of forestry. There is a tendency in some quarters to suggest that anyone who criticises the voluntary agreement is either trying to sabotage it, or is attacking the good faith of the parties. These are certainly not my aims or intentions, and I am sure the Minister and the House will accept my assurance on the point.

I want to point out the following things tonight. The agreement provides only for consultation. There are no sanctions for ensuring agreement. This inevitably places planning authorities in the National Parks in a weak position when it comes to negotiation. Also, the agreement is limited in its scope. It applies only to members of the Country Landowners' Association, the Timber Growers' Organisation and the Forestry Commission, as I pointed out, and it has no effect at all upon non-members of those organisations, of whom, I believe, there are several who are actively interested; certainly, there are some who are active in my part of the world. Nor does it apply to those members, as I understand, who may choose, without breach of faith, not to take part in the scheme. I believe that those are serious demerits in the agreement, and I hope that the situation can be improved.

The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) referred recently to a particular case which has arisen. The hon. Member has always taken a keen interest in the subject, and I congratulate him on his efforts. The local National Park Committee is firmly opposed to afforestation on a part of High House Moor, on Dartmoor, yet it is understood that the local developer intends to proceed with his plans nevertheless. That is most unsatisfactory. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will devote his attention to that matter and see whether, under paragraph 7 of the agreement, he can use his good offices to have matters put right.

It is extremely important, if the agreement is to be a success, that we in the House of Commons—the Minister, in particular, and all of us who are interested in the subject—should express clearly and firmly our determination now to make it work. Otherwise, it will become a dead letter and irreparable harm will be done. The zoning proposals might be dangerous in the sense that, in the case of areas zoned, presumably, as suitable for afforestation, there will be no control, so it seems from the agreement, on the choice of species or on the landscaping of any planting schemes which may be undertaken. This, again, is something to which attention should be directed. If it is possible to improve the agreement in that respect, we should do so.

I have made it clear, I hope, that I am a supporter of the agreement. I have made it clear, I hope, that I am most anxious to see it work. For myself—and I believe that I speak in this for many other hon. Members—I shall do all I can to see that it does work. I feel, however, that this point should be made. If the agreement does not work, what then? I hope that we shall tonight have an assurance from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary either that he would introduce legislation on the subject along the lines I have indicated or, alternatively, that he would support any attempt made by a private Member of the House, whether myself or anybody else, to do so. I very much hope that such legislation would not be opposed by the Government.

I believe that the beauty of our country is a great heritage. In the National Parks and in other parts of the country, too, that great heritage is being preserved. I am most anxious to see it preserved. Hence my reason for raising the matter tonight, and my anxiety to make certain that we in the House of Commons do not permit a situation to arise which would have the effect, even in the slightest degree, of cutting across or impairing the tremendously valuable work which the National Parks Commission is doing to preserve that heritage for the future.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby (Dorset, West)

Everyone, I am sure, will wish properly to consider local opinion, particularly on the question of the landscape. I think that there is an important principle here which we must put in proportion. First, it should be remembered that, of all the countries of Europe, this country has the lowest forest area. Although our area is rising slightly, it is even smaller than that of the Low Countries. In its latest Report, the Forestry Commission says that it is at present short of its required reserve of land. In my view, therefore, we should hesitate before imposing or considering imposing a fresh control upon the use of land. Those closely connected with the land know that there are already a great many controls of one kind and another.

Furthermore, the forestry industry, although very like agriculture in some ways, is very unlike in others. The crop takes so much longer to harvest, and does not get any fixed price at all. Marketing is proving a difficult problem, although 90 per cent. of all the timber requirements of this country are imported. Surely that is a matter of importance at a time when we are in difficulties with foreign exchange.

Mr. F. H. Hayman (Falmouth and Camborne)

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that this debate is about National Parks, and that whatever may apply to the rest of the country, the National Parks should be preserved as parks in their natural aspects?

Mr. Digby

I agree that they should be preserved. I cannot agree that trees are necessarily ugly or undesirable, and I would remind the hon. Gentleman that there was a time when there were far more trees in the country than at present. They were removed originally by the hand of man, and it does not follow that they should never be replaced. I would agree that there are some places, such as Exmoor and Dartmoor, where it is desirable to keep a lot of the existing features, but it is possible to exaggerate this point.

I hope very much that it will be possible to stick to voluntary agreements in this matter. It is not in the interests of the National Parks, the national economy, or forestry to fix some new form of control on woodlands.

11.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph)

The House has become used to balanced, cogent and sensible speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), and he has not disappointed us tonight.

I hope that what he said, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Digby) has said, together with what I am about to say, will be read widely, because there is no doubt that the strongest feelings are aroused by the subject of trees.

I sometimes get the impression that one cannot really do the right thing when it comes to trees. If someone proposes to fell them, that is wrong, and if someone proposes to plant them, that is wrong, too. I was once tempted to go in for afforestation and I read right through a most impressive and interesting text book by Mr. Hiley, called, I think, "Woodland Management". But the whole thing seemed a bit more complex than I had anticipated, and I did not pursue my researches into activity.

The amenity objections to commercial afforestation in National Parks are caused by two distinct sets of operations. The first is large-scale afforestation of open moorland, and that is what my hon. Friends have been discussing. The other is the substitution of coniferous for deciduous trees in existing woodlands. The conflict between the interests of amenity and commercial afforestation is by no means inevitable, even in National Parks.

We all know that National Parks are wide areas of beautiful and relatively wild country, and the main object must be to preserve the characteristic beauty of their landscape. But another object is to improve the access and facilities for people to enjoy themselves in the open air, and we must remember, also, that these places are not museums. People live in them, and have to work in them. Afforestation, like farming, is part of the natural scene, and essential to the life of the parks and their people.

Section 84 of the National Parks Act, 1949, requires the National Parks Commission and local planning authorities to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry in exercising their functions under that Act. It is also true that agriculture and forestry are not "development", and so do not require planning permission.

Tree preservation orders are a useful means of control over existing woodlands in the interests of amenity. But these orders do not stop decay, and they are not intended to be used to sterilise woodlands. Their object is to ensure good management of woods by controlled felling and natural regeneration or replanting in such a way as to reconcile the claims of amenity with the practice of good forestry, and so maintain the beauty of the countryside.

Just over two years ago the forestry syndicates in the south-west first caused concern by buying existing woodlands in Dartmoor and Exmoor to put them on a commercial basis. This led to an outcry, possibly because it was feared that conifers would replace deciduous trees. Many of these woods, typical oak woods, had been neglected, and nothing short of early and drastic treatment can now save many from complete decay. It is understandable that timber growers wish to replant largely with softwoods for commercial reasons, but in fairness it should be pointed out that they have also undertaken the planting of hardwoods for amenity reasons, often at the price of less immediate benefit to themselves. Though they have not been obliged to make these concessions for the sake of the landscape, they have felt able to do so.

Experience has shown that early consultation between timber growers and planning authorities can result in a solution reasonably acceptable to both sides. But, obviously, some concessions must be made. Whether one believes that trees improve the landscape or not, I am glad that my hon. Friend stressed that what we are dealing with here is basically that afforestation changes the landscape. Large-scale development of new forests in open moorland, or even small scale operations in some parts, may and do upset many people. But judicious planting need not conflict with amenities and may well enhance the beauty of the countryside.

The problem has been under consideration by my right hon. Friend's Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Forestry Commission and the National Parks Commission, and there is now the voluntary agreement to which my hon. Friend referred. It was reached last month between the Timber Growers' Organisation, the Country Landowners' Association, the National Parks Commission and the Forestry Commission. The terms of the agreement, and the letter sent by the Secretary of the National Parks Commission recommending planning authorities to operate the scheme, were published in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 14th February last. The timber growers were asked to consult the planning authorities about plans for tree planting in national parks, and planning authorities were asked to survey the parks, dividing them into three categories.

These were, first, where there is a strong presumption that afforestation will be acceptable; secondly, where although there is a presumption against afforestation, proposals might be acceptable; and, thirdly, where there is a strong presumption against afforestation. Even in areas where there is presumption in favour, consultation will still take place about the exact location of the planting and the details of the planting.

My right hon. Friend is anxious that this voluntary scheme should be given a fair chance. The Devon County Council recently withdrew from its Private Bill, now before Parliament, a Clause seeking to control in the county afforestation operations in National Parks. After the Country Landowners' Association and the Timber Growers' Organisation had written to their local bodies, arrangements for local consultations are in process of being set up.

My hon. Friend referred to a few landowners in those parts who are not members of that organisation, but we have no reason to fear that they will not, as individuals, comply with such agreements. Hon. Members will have received a copy of the memorandum to which my hon. Friend referred rather sceptically. Sir Herbert Griffin, Hon. Secretary of the Standing Committee which produced the memorandum, wrote a few weeks ago saying it was the hope of the Committee, despite scepticism, that the agreement would succeed. The purpose of the memorandum is to make a strong plea for statutory control over afforestation in National Parks, but the parties to the agreement do not share the despondency of the Standing Committee. Discussions have been held through the Timber Growers' Organisation, and these will go on.

My hon. Friend spoke of sanctions. I am not clear as to how a voluntary agreement would be improved by sanctions. If sanctions were provided it would cease to be voluntary. He asked about trees on High House Moor. Discussions are still proceeding between the proposed developers and the authorities.

The spirit of co-operation that has already been shown by the production of the voluntary agreement, and by the way in which it has been received and implemented in the National Parks, gives cause for confidence that the scheme can be made to work. It should not be impossible, with common sense, to reconcile the claims of good forestry, the National Parks and the rights of landowners.

What if the scheme fails? If that happens a new situation will have been created, and will have to be faced. Most people take the view that judicious planting of trees need not conflict with the duties under Section 5 of the National Parks Act, which is to preserve and enhance the beauty of the parks and promote their enjoyment by the public. Trees can be useful as well as beautiful. My right hon. Friend wants to give the scheme a fair trial and I hope that hon. Members will also want to see this done. Progress will be kept under careful review by the National Parks Commission and by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. du Cann

Will my hon. Friend agree with me that it is important to make it clear that it is the wish of the House and of the Minister and himself that everybody, whether members of these organisations or not, should take part in this voluntary consultation at all times?

Sir K. Joseph

That is the strong wish of my right hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Eleven o'clock.