AMENDMENT OF S. 89(1) OF THE ACT OF 1949. (Hansard, 9 April 1968)

§ Mr. Peter M. Jackson

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

I apologise for returning to a matter which was debated, perhaps not as fully as it might have been, in Committee. It is however, a matter of considerable consequence and perhaps I should not be too fulsome in my apologies. The purpose of the new Clause is to amend Section 89(1) of the 1949 Act to allow local authorities to receive grants in aid not only in respect of tree planting but also in respect of tree maintenance work.

I know that my hon. Friend who is to reply to this debate has every sympathy with me in this matter. I wish to get on the record the reply he made in Committee. My hon. Friend accepted that it is only right and proper that trees should be adequately maintained. He went on to say that he was very much seized of my remarks, and he added: If we can meet it, I should like to do so. I am not in any way opposed to meeting that problem … I should like to look again at the question of maintenance of more mature tries to see whether we can do anything about it. I think that the arguments will be economic rather than philosophical."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 13th February, 1968; c. 930–1.] I believe there is no division between the two sides of the House on this matter. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) supported me. I think my hon. Friend misunderstood the purpose of the Amendment I moved in Committee. In his reply, he spoke about grants being given for planting and of budgeting being over a period of five years. Thus, according to his argument, there was an element of maintenance. I said that I am not so much concerned with replanting but with the problems of mature trees.

I am not alone in this. The Commission, in its Report, was also seized of the problem and urged upon the Government the need for amending legislation to allow grants to be paid in respect 1190 of maintenance. I quote from the Report of 1961, Appendix E, paragraph 7. It says in a general reference to the increasing grants: The cost of acquisition, maintenance and management should qualify for grant … That appears in italics. The Report spells out the general case for increasing the number of grants referring to trees and says: These powers would be of wide application and benefit. A particularly good example of the use which might be made of them is in the acquisition and management of amenity woodlands. The Commission's efforts to get this done under existing powers, either by the Forestry Commission or the Minister, have not so far proved successful. In this matter I am not a lone voice crying in the wilderness; I have the support of the Commission in calling for a change in the legislation.

Much of the work of maintenance in woodlands is continuous. It takes place all the year round. One thinks of work in nurseries, of the preparation of semi-mature trees and actual tree surgery. These matters do not qualify for grants. Local authorities would be somewhat inhibited from undertaking this work, yet it is very necessary that it should be undertaken. It is not enough to say, as my hon. Friend said, that planning authorities can recoup a certain cost through thinnings. I believe I rebutted that argument successfully when I pointed out in Committee that we were not concerned with replanting but with hundreds of thousands of mature trees which require to be maintained.

The cost of the work of tree surgery is appreciable. I refer to the British Standard. My hon. Friend hopes, as we all hope, that all tree work in the future will conform to the recommendations of British Standard 398 of 1966. I do not know if he is familiar with the terms of the British Standard but if he looked up the matter he would realise that a lot of this work is very expensive. To quote one or two examples: cavity treatment costs money; reducing and shaping and bracing all cost money. A lot of unskilled people would not undertake this work but if the work were to be undertaken in conformity with the British Standard it would cost money, and one feels that local authorities, because such very necessary work would not qualify 1191 for a grant, would be reluctant to put the work in the hands of a competent tree surgeon.

I cannot feel that when the 1949 Act was drafted the Parliamentary draftsmen were sufficiently cognisant of the problems which would be involved as a result of tree planting. Had there been a Parliamentary draftsman with a knowledge of forestry and an interest in trees the point I am urging upon my hon. Friend would have been adequately covered. To me it is an absurdity that we give grants of 75 per cent. for planting trees and do do not make adequate provision for their subsequent maintenance.

I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will meet me on this point and that we shall have adequate plans not only for tree planting but also for tree maintenance.

§ Mr. Skeffington

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) speaks with real passion about trees, and this is a feeling I share. We will not go through the personal revelations of each other's secret hobbies as we did in Committee. I will only say to him and to the House that so far as he is speaking about the need for these things to be done, particularly in large amenity woodlands, or indeed woodlands anywhere, I share that interest. I said to him in Committee, and I think I had better repeat it because it is perhaps not generally realised, that the way in which the grants have been administered under Section 89(1) of the 1949 Act has been to pay a grant not only for the planting but also for work during a period of four or five years afterwards. One cannot just plant a tree by putting it in a hole and leaving it. There has to be preparation, the soil may have to be drained, and there are fencing and ditching and many other operations. The grant has always taken this into account and if a tree does not taken within a reasonable period a replacement is generally allowed. So this grant has been applied in a way which I think has been both intelligent and not ungenerous. For a period of four or five years afterwards the grant payable has covered far more than the mere act of putting the tree into the ground.

1192 The payment of the grant for this purpose is covered in the appropriate sections of the Bill. Clause 27 makes it possible first of all for a 75 per cent. grant to be paid instead of the smaller grant. It will apply to the whole country as opposed to only a small area and I have every reason to think, and will take some steps to ensure, that the grant will continue to be applied in the same way. This is a tremendous extension of a power which has proved very successful in getting trees planted.

My hon. Friend argues that, beyond that period, and certainly in the case of mature trees, continual work must be done by experts to keep them in the best trim. If splits develop, they must be covered. All this work is recognised as requiring a high degree of skill. When one is considering the provision of national funds for this and other purposes, I bring the House back to the point that these major grants from central authorities are to cover the initial expenditure. We should be opening the gates very wide if, having paid the 75 per cent. grant for the heavy initial expenditure, the central Government were to continue for an indefinite time with a supplementary grant. I could not agree to that principle in this connection any more than I could for the many other things where, having paid a 75 per cent. grant, the central Government or the Commission might be asked to authorise maintenance grants or some continuing grant over a long period of years.

I do not blame my hon. Friend for trying to write this into the Bill. I am sure that local authorities, the Park Planning Board and everybody else would like it. I have said why it breaches the general principle, although I have great sympathy with the point. I hope that the fact that we cannot have a special grant for maintenance beyond a certain period will in no way lessen the work which these local authorities are doing and, I hope, will do on an increasing scale. Although I realise that maintenance work costs money, it costs nothing like the huge sum the initial planting costs. I hope that this will not be too great a burden to leave with the authorities which are now doing the work.