HC Deb 20 December 1968 vol 775 cc1762-77

1.45 p.m.

Mr. John Parker (Dagenham)

I wish to raise a question which is causing a great deal of perturbation in the ranks of those Members who are interested in forestry, and also in the ranks of trade unions of which forestry workers are members.

The first point to which I want to draw attention is the difficulty which hon. Members have, owing to devolution, in pinpointing certain forestry problems to certain Ministers. The subject of forestry devolves upon three Ministers—the Minister of Agriculture, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales. In my view, however desirable it may be for an individual Minister to discuss planting programmes and similar matters affecting his own part of the United Kingdom, some Minister should have a general responsibility to the House for over-all economic policy in respect of forestry.

In view of the large planting programme which is now taking place in Scotland, and the fact that the greater part of the programme is being carried out in Scotland, I am of the opinion that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be responsible, through one of his Ministers, for dealing with the general economic questions about forestry in the United Kingdom—and that we should get away from the division of responsibility among three Ministers. That system does not work satisfactorily. I do not wish to cast any reflection upon my hon. Friend who is to reply—a Scotsman sitting for an English constituency—who, I have no doubt, will reply today.

I wish to question the size of the Forestry Commission labour force. I have been given figures showing that in September, 1957, there were 13,040 industrial workers in the Forestry Commission and that in September, 1966, the number had fallen to 10,338—in other words, a drop of 2,702, or 20 per cent. of the total labour force. That trend has been continuing, and according to figures which I have received from the trade unions—they having received them from the Forestry Commission—between April, 1968, and April, 1972, there will be another drop of 2,000 industrial workers from the Forestry Commission.

What are the facts? I understand that most of this drop will take place in England. There is a big increase in the planting programme in Scotland, and there we have been given two sets of figures which are not exactly complementary. On 22nd June, 1966, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) was told that the number of staff employed by the Forestry Commission in Scotland amounted to about 4,600 and that about 3,000 of those were skilled industrial workers. The answer went on to point out that it was expected that there would be an increase to 4,800 by 1970, of which 3,600 would be skilled industrial workers.

The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was given an Answer on 30th November, 1967, to the following effect: The industrial staff of the Forestry Commission in Scotland at 30th September … 1963."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 176.] was 3,916 and by the same date in 1966 it had dropped to 3,796. In other words, the figures given a year later were rather different from those given in 1966 about the number of staff employed in Scotland.

Figures supplied to the trade unions by the Commission suggest that over 1968–72 there will be particularly heavy drops in the numbers employed in Wales and fairly large drops in all the English conservancies. The figures for Scotland are fairly level. In only one area of Scotland—South Scotland—is an increase forecast over this period. This is taking account of a very large increase in the planting programme in Scotland.

Can we have some answer about the supervisory and administrative staffs? I understand from recent Answers given in the House that there is now a retirement scheme for supervisory and administrative staff of the Commission by which they can retire at 60 or about that age with appropriate pension and lump sum. There has been a good deal of feeling among other grades of Commission employees that there have not been the same kind of cuts in the supervisory and administrative staffs as there have been among the industrial staffs generally. I should like further details of what kind of cuts are envisaged, and what numbers are envisaged as being employed in 1972, in supervisory and administrative grades in the United Kingdom as a whole.

The replacement of Commission labour by contract labour is a very important question which is creating a deal of feeling. There is the feeling that Commission workers are partly being dismissed and being replaced by contract labour. Figures given in the House showed that in 1957 35 per cent. of work done in Commission forests was done by contract labour. This figure had increased by 1963 to 58 per cent. Last year it was 50 per cent.

Most of us who are interested in Forestry think that this is far too large a figure. It is large in all areas, save East Anglia. It is particularly large in Wales. Figures given in a Parliamentary Answer on 22nd July, 1967, showed that in Wales there were 80 independent contractors and private merchants and 28 one-man firms employed by the Commission. Why this very large switch to contract labour?

One of the reasons which has always been given to the House as to why we have gone in for a policy of building up forestry sources is partly to rehabilitate the countryside and to give secure jobs to people in the countryside. Unless security is given to people who are to work in forests, a large part of the whole purpose of building up forestry is destroyed. If we are to rehabilitate the countryside by building up our forests, security of employment must be given; there must be more employment, if possible; and certainly a better life must be provided than is at present offered by the very many uneconomic small farms in areas like Wales.

We are not Luddites. We do not take the view that jobs should be created for the sake of creating them. We take the view that it is right and reasonable that the Commission should employ all the most up-to-date machinery and techniques and make the best use of its resources from the point of view of planning, and so on. This is not to say that we do not think that is wrong to replace Commission labour by contract labour.

If no other labour is available for a job, it is reasonable to employ contract labour. As far as possible, the Commission's work should be planned ahead so that it can use its own labour and not use contract labour unless it is absolutely essential.

Those of us who are interested in this subject take the view that a great deal of the labour that is working for the Commission could be used, not only by replacing contract labour by Commission labour, but also by going in for a bigger planting programme. Most of us would agree that it is right and reasonable that there should be a big expansion of planting in Scotland, but we take the view that planting expansion should not be limited to Scotland.

It is alleged that there is a shortage of land at suitable prices for forestry. We are faced with the real problem that all the agricultural subsidies given by government since the war have pushed up the price of land and made it more expensive for government to buy land for forestry purposes. In other words, the price of land has been artificially put up by the subsidies given to help agriculture.

This is a very difficult problem to deal with. I shall not attempt to suggest now how it might be dealt with. It is agreed by the Government that there ought to be a big expansion of planting in Wales, but land cannot easily be obtained in Wales. The programme has been restricted there because of the difficulty of getting land.

A number of difficulties arise in Wales. First, there has been a big entry by economic forestry groups. Various business groups find it advantageous from the taxation point of view to put a certain amount of money into forestry; and they are often prepared to pay a good deal more for land than the Commission can afford to pay. Most of the labour employed by these groups is contract labour. They do not have the obligation of finding employment for local inhabitants and for other special groups.

There is academic opposition from some of those connected with the National Parks. None of us would want to see trees planted on top of Snowdon, and there are enormous areas of Wales which are wild and which will always be wild. It is an asset from an amenity point of view if behind them there are valleys which are well afforested. I know Wales rather well. There are beautiful places like Gwydyr and Dovey, Corris, in Merionethshire, and even Lake Vyrnwy and the Elan Valley lakes which have been planted up and which have added to the scenic beaut)' of Wales. We should have a reasonable policy for planting in suitable parts of the National Parks.

I agree that in the early stages the trees so planted do not look particularly agreeable, but once the trees have grown to a certain size beauty comes. Much of the War Department land in Wales could be handed over reasonably soon to the Commission for planting. Powers of compulsory purchase should be used and the Government should be prepared to take land, if they really want it for forestry purposes, and go ahead with this programme.

In other words, there is a need for a big move forward in Wales. The Government recognise the need. The move as been held up because of the difficulty of getting land. Steps should be taken to get land to enable us to go ahead.

In England we have practically closed down on the purchase of land by the Commission, apart from the Border counties of Northumberland and Cumberland where there is the big Kieder Forest. I agree that there is no great case for buying up land in the South-East or in the Midlands, which would have to be bought expensively and which would not be particularly useful for forestry purposes.

However, there are parts of England where there is a strong need for a national forestry policy. Take the South-West of England. A large part of it is a development area. With its plentiful rainfall, it is one of the best areas in the country for growing timber. Some of my hon. Friends and I have visited the wonderful forests which have grown up since the First World War in the Quantocks, the Brendon Hills, and so on. There is a big output of timber in a short time. It is just the type of area where there should be an active forestry policy going ahead and where the Commission should have a free hand to buy land.

Another area is East Anglia. This, too, is a somewhat depressed area. Already there are 50,000 acres of forest land put out on the old heaths there. The policy has been held up partly in the area because of the fiddles in regard to Income Tax, and because land owners have been able to get Government monetary assistance for ploughing up heath-land for agricultural purposes. Much of this land would be better used for forestry. Again, large areas of War Department land should be made available for forestry purposes. We should aim at doubling in a short time the area under forest in East Anglia.

There is a case for expanding forestry. Ninety per cent. of our timber is imported at a cost of over £200 million & year. We talk much about the balance of payments problem, but there is also the problem of a future world shortage of timber. Every year technical advances are finding more uses for timber and world supplies, in Russia and other countries, are beginning to come to an end-In the long term, three is a strong case for giving a good deal of thought to expanding our timber resources and production.

The stumbling block is the Treasury. By 1985, the Forestry Commission is likely to be self-supporting. The Treasury expects a return on capital of 4½ to 5 per cent. in this field. I do not quarrel with that, but we should not adopt too narrow a view. When we look 50 years or more ahead, we realise that it is important that we should have an expansion programme in timber production, even though in the short term the return might not be as great as it is in other fields.

I come to the question of subsidiary developments. Hon. Members were pleased when a pulp mill was set up at Fort William. The chipboard factory in Thetford, Norfolk, has finally got going after great difficulties. But if subsidiary industries are to be built up and worked on satisfactory lines so that they give employment and replace imports, timber must be coming forward to meet their needs and to supply their raw materials.

There is need for long-term planning in forestry if it is to make its contribution to our future as a nation and at the same time to provide worthwhile jobs for those in the industry and for their sons. Most young men in areas where forestry is actively carried on want to go into forestry if they can and if there is a secure livelihood in it. By cutting the labour force we are cutting their chances of job security for the future.

It is important from a national point of view and from the point of view of those in the industry that we should have a more energetic and active forestry policy which is based upon providng as many jobs as possible directly through the Forestry Commission and not by substituting contract labour for them.

2.2 p.m.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson (The High Peak)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) on initiating this debate. As he has adequately spelled out, this is a serious matter, not throughout the countryside, but in some parts of it. He quoted the figures, but I feel that they are worth reiterating.

In 1957, 35 per cent. of the harvesting of State forests was undertaken by contract labour. By 1963, the figure had shot up to 58 per cent. The current figure is 51 per cent. My hon. Friend quoted examples of even more staggering ratios. I will not repeat them, but I should like to give another example. East Scotland is a large conservancy which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will know well. The current figures there are that 3¾ million hoppus feet were harvested by contractors compared with a mere and derisory 750,000 hoppus feet by the Forestry Commission.

There has been a considerable contraction in the labour force. In 1957, the figure was 13,040. At present it is 9,765 and it is estimated that there will be a further decline by the close of 1972. Numerically, the contraction is not very great, but in small communities it can bring catastrophe. I have had drawn to my attention a small isolated village in Mid Wales with a population of 30. Six of the wage earners in the village were Forestry Commission employees. Three of them were fired. They had four dependants, seven people out of the 30 were thus deprived of their livelihood. They had to travel large distances to find alternative work and for many weeks they were out of work. Obviously, if they were sensible, these people would leave the village. But they have lived there for many years. Why should they be forced to leave?

When contract labour, peripatetic labour, is brought in, there is much bitterness, because most of the people who work on contract are under 45.

I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to a recent debate of the Forestry Group of the Civil Service Union in which it was claimed by one speaker, a Mr. Wilson, that no one over the age of 45 was employed by a contractor. A man is regarded as finished when he reaches that age.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary should think of forestry not merely in economic terms but in social terms. He would argue that he is already doing this in that he is allowing for expansion of State forests in Scotland, a development area, but not in the South West. He would argue that the economic return in the South-West is greater, but, nevertheless, there is an embargo on additional purchases of land in the South-West and the go-ahead has been given for an additional planting programme in Scotland.

Therefore, the Forestry Commission and its Ministry are aware of the social obligations. But I put it to my hon. Friend that they are perhaps not sufficiently well aware of them.

There are innumerable areas of land which could be purchased. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham suggested that there are not suitable areas of land in central Wales. I hope that he will accept the correction when I say that there are large areas of suitable land in central Wales. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware of them. On 11th October, 1967, he receive a document from the T.U.C, setting out in great detail, conservancy by conservancy, region by region, properties offered to the Forestry Commission which it did not, for one reason or another, purchase. I should like my hon. Friend—and I will correspond with him about this matter—to deal with the specific cases where the Economic Forestry Group was in a position to outbid the Commission. There are other reasons why these properties were not purchased, such as dilatoriness in conveyancing.

Why is it that the private sector, and particularly the Economic Forestry Group, is able to outbid the Commission? I draw attention to the excellent paper given at this year's British Association meeting by Professor Mutch in which he argued about the economics of forestry and clearly demonstrated that our system of taxation was such that the private sector had an advantage of 3½ per cent. compound interest on all capital employed. That is a considerable financial advantage, particularly when it is compared with the fact that the Forestry Commission has to pay current rates of interest. It is hardly surprising therefore that the Economic Forestry Group and other such organisations are in a position to compete successfully with and outbid the State sector.

What we expect from the Government—and we are surprised that we do not have it—is parity between the State and the private sector. As it is, all the aces are in the hands of the private sector.

I regard it as paradoxical that upland areas, particularly in central Wales and my constituency, are worked as agriculture. Often the economic return on such working does not meet the subsidies paid. In other words, there is a direct subsidy from the State to the fanners in these marginal upland areas. That is accepted, and it can be argued that on social grounds we cannot allow these communities to die. If that is true of agriculture, should not it be true of forestry, which receives no subsidy? If it is proper for agriculture to be subsidised in certain development areas, it is equally proper that forestry should be similarly subsidised.

My hon. Friend will doubtless tell me that the Commission thinks it proper to sell so much standing timber because the economic return on its sale is greater than that on timber delivered to mills. I ask him to look closely at the basis of the costing. The Commission argues that it is proper to apportion overheads constantly throughout the total forestry operation, particularly the cost of supervision. This is a spurious form of costing. There is no real saving, particularly in supervision, if standing timber is sold as compared with the Commission harvesting it. The true cost should be that of the labour involved, which is a much lower proportionate cost than that given by the Commission to justify the policy of selling so much standing timber.

I also ask my hon. Friend to look at the cost incurred by the Commission in clearing up after contract labour, which is not concerned about the state of forests, though the Commission is. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and I have been told by many Commission employees on our tours through the conservancies of England, Wales and Scotland of the number of times they have had to go into the forest and tidy up after the contract labour have finished. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend whether there is a cost element in terms of clearing up.

I am astounded that a Labour Government with no ideological objection to expansion of the public sector should have been so cavalier and indifferent as to allow this rundown of the public sector. I hope that my hon. Friend will instruct his officials to scrutinise in greater detail the costing which allows the Commission to justify its policy of an expansion of contract labour.

2.13 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie)

This is the second time—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. For that reason the hon. Gentleman will require the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Mackie

I am sorry that my opening remarks reminded you of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

With the leave of the House, I was about to say that this is the second time today that hon. Members have suggested that some centralisation of responsibility is required, in other words, that too many Ministers are concerned with various matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) suggested that it might be better if one Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, were wholly responsible for forestry. I take his point, but in many ways forestry is an agricultural operation, and apart from a short period the Ministry has been responsible for it for a long time. We see no reason for having it otherwise, although I agree that Scotland has a larger area of forestry than England and Wales.

I have every sympathy with my hon. Friends the Members for Dagenham and The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) about the reduction of the Commission's labour force. A good deal of emphasis has been laid in the past by all Governments on the opportunities for employment which forestry has offered in rural areas suffering from depopulation. The reduction is necessary because the Commission has made important technical strides in the past few years. I ask my hon. Friends to compare the situation with that in agriculture. It was also considered to be of social benefit to help agriculture and to see that farming employment remained in some of the glens and other agricultural areas. But with the advance in agricultural techniques the numbers of agricultural workers have fallen. The figures for the reduction in agriculture are much greater than in forestry, the reduction in the labour force being up to 27,000–28,000 in a year. In the past 20 years, it has fallen by nearly two-thirds.

All of us who have an interest in forestry and have been to the Forestry Commission's forests, have noticed that possibly in its early days the Commission tended to be over-meticulous in some of its operations and supervision given to them. But in recent years the Commission has improved its working methods and management techniques, thus enabling it to rationalise the whole process of establishing and managing its forests. For example, in the extraction of felled timber the Commission is mechanising intensively, which enables it to do the work more quickly with less labour. Fewer roads need to be made with the new systems of extraction, and this is resulting in big economies.

The weeding of young plantations has always been time-consuming and expensive. Anybody who has watched the process, with the worker going round each tree with a bill-hook, would appreciate this. It was all done by hand, but chemical weeding is making the job easier and much more efficient. It needs only half the labour and the effect is much more lasting.

Another economy is being made by wider spacing between the young trees when they are planted. I remember wondering, as a boy, why trees were planted so close together and then had to be thinned out. It seemed a great waste, but it was the traditional practice because it was considered essential to plant the young trees closely, partly for protection from exposure, and partly to suppress the growth of weeds. It has now been found that close spacing is unnecessary, particularly because weeding can be done so economically by chemical spraying.

I have quoted only three examples of important changes which the Commission has made in its techniques. They are inter-related and have a cumulative effect. It is entirely owing to these and other improvements that the Commission has had to face the fact that it could reach the targets we have set it with a much smaller labour force than in the past.

What is the scale of the proposed reduction? At present the Commission employs a total of about 7,500 forest workers—nearly 3,000 in England, 2,900 in Scotland and 1,600 in Wales. By March, 1972 it is expected that the total number of forest workers will have fallen to about 6,300, which I must admit is a considerable reduction. The reduction will be about 650 in England, 150 in Scotland and 350 in Wales. In addition, the Commission employs about 1,300 industrial workers. A small reduction in their numbers is also taking place, but does not affect the main issue.

Both my hon. Friends asked what the reduction was to be in the number of supervisors. They are to be reduced from about 1,300 to about 1,200 by 1972. A close review of other supervisory and administrative staff is also in progress.

It is important to emphasise strongly that the reduction in the labour force will be obtained very largely from what is called—although I dislike the expression—"natural wastage". This covers retirement, workers leaving for other employment, and so forth. Nevertheless, there will remain a relatively small hard core of redundancy which will have to be dealt with under procedures agreed between the Commission and the unions.

My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak mentioned the social problems and the hardship of those who find themselves out of their jobs, and I have every sympathy with them. But, as I have pointed out, the Government introduced the Redundancy Payments Act. which was not in force when these things used to happen and we will be consulted anyway where there are special local problems before decisions are taken about any large scale redundancy. We should not be too despondent. Even with reductions of this size in the labour force, the Commission will continue to contribute substantially to employment in the countryside, particularly in the remote areas from which the retreat of population has been most marked.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham said that Scotland was getting the lion's share and suggested using land in the Pennines and East Anglia for forestry. I take that point. He also mentioned one of the many reasons for the existence of the Forestry Commission—the rehabilitation of those areas of the countryside we have been speaking about.

Neither the employment of contract labour nor the practice of selling timber standing is a material factor in the reduction. It is true that the Commission does in some areas and for some jobs generally of a short term nature, employ contractors. My hon. Friend quoted figures showing, however, a reduction in the use of contractors over the last year or two. The effect of employment of contract labour on the size of the permanent labour force is, however, immaterial. Contractors are employed by the Commission only on a limited scale, when it is reasonable to do so in the light of local conditions.

I think my hon. Friend's real objection is not so much to the employment of contract labour as such but to the practice of selling timber standing to timber merchants. I must make it clear that the percentage of selling standing timber is also falling.

I must make it clear also that there is no bias in the Commission towards selling timber standing, nor is there a simple correlation between the amount of timber sold in this way and the size of the Commission's labour force. The fact is that the Commission must have a good deal of freedom to act flexibly in its management policies if it is to derive the maximum commercial value from its operations.

Both my hon. Friends stressed, rightly, that the Commission is there for social purposes as well but it is also its remit to be commercially viable. In some areas, it is commercially better to sell from standing instead of felling by direct labour. In other areas, the converse is true. A whole range of factors is involved, such as the availability of local skills, the scale of local felling programmes and the local demand for timber which cannot always be met without the help of the timber trade. It is only fair to point out that the timber trade, most of which is in private hands, cannot be efficient without continuity of work also. Moreover, the timber trade's own workers also have reasonable claims to an assurance of continuous employment.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson

I take the point and neither my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) nor I would dispute it. But the arguments my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is posing were operative a decade ago, when a mere 35 per cent. of harvesting was undertaken by contract labour. Why has the situation changed so radically over the last 10 years?

Mr. Mackie

I would not agree that it has changed as radically as my on. Friend suggests. He himself has given the figures. The percentage has fallen from 57 to 51 per cent. The figures for selling standing timber has also fallen, but it varies over the years and much depends on the area where it is felled.

Both my hon. Friends stressed the need for expansion of the Commission's programme. The Commission has most impressive plans for expansion. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last January, we hope that the Commission will plant as much as 50,000 acres a year by 1976 in Scotland alone. There is no policy bar, moreover, to expansion in Wales and in upland areas in the North of England.

Both my hon. Friends asked about the Economic Forestry Group and its ability to get land as against the Commission, and they stressed the taxation arrangements. These arrangements are not designed specifically to confer special advantages on private forestry but to take account of the rather unique fiscal problem presented by the fact that the investment involved does not mature for 30, 40 or even 50 or 60 years. Although investment in forestry is attractive to high Surtax payers, and forestry grants are also an incentive, it would be difficult to differentiate between investment by clients of the Economic Forestry Group and farmers acting independently, although their motives may not be identical. The Government have reviewed forestry taxation but no changes of substance have emerged.

My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak said that agriculture was subsidised but not forestry. But private forestry is, in fact, subsidised through taxation allowances, and so forth, and it is difficult to subsidise to any great extent a public body like the Forestry Commission which gets its money from the Treasury anyway.

My hon. Friend also mentioned various costings. I will write to him about these. I will look into the point put to me by the unions that, when timber is felled privately or by contract labour, the cost of clearing up is sometimes left to the Commission. I will examine this with officials of the Commission.

We will ensure that the Department of Employment and Productivity is kept fully informed about redundancy in the Commission so that everything can be done at the earliest possible moment to see that alternative employment is available. We appreciate the human problems which will inevitably arise but, at the same time, we must avoid exaggerating their scale in terms of men actually discharged.

We must also accept the fact that any other approach to the problem would mean keeping on men who could not be fully occupied. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham said that he and my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak were not Luddites and do not want this to happen, and I agree. It would make nonsense of the commercial operations of the Commission and would not be in the national interest—nor in the genuine interests of the men themselves.

Mr. Parker

Could my hon. Friend say something about purchasing land in South-West England or East Anglia, parts of which are development areas'?

Mr. Mackie

These areas are basically agricultural and the battle for land there, for use for reservoirs, housing and so forth, is very fierce. There are places where the land is thin and not very good and which is not afforested, but I doubt whether there is much room to expand forestry in these areas. However, I will bear the suggestion in mind.