HC Deb 26 February 1986 vol 92 cc935-7
10. Mr. Chapman

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about how the economics of new afforestation schemes on upland areas are assessed by him.

Mr. John MacKay

Forestry grant schemes are administered by the Forestry Commission, whose consideration of an application for planting grants embraces agricultural, land use and environmental aspects. The expected return from the commission's own planting schemes is assessed on the basis of net discounted revenue.

Mr. Chapman

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, but since upland sites generally result in the least economic afforestation schemes, should not Government policy ensure that commercial tree planting in our nation's uplands must not be at the expense of highly important and sensitive landscaped areas? Will he confirm that some recent schemes have had a deleterious effect on such environments?

Mr. MacKay

Without knowing exactly what schemes my hon. Friend has in mind, I would rather not comment on the last part of his question. The expected rate of return from private planting is entirely up to the owner who is proposing the private planting, but I accept that the right balance must be sought between forestry and the needs of nature conservation. The commission will accept for grant-aid only those proposals which are sound in forestry and environmental terms. The Forestry Commission consults the Nature Conservancy Council on SSSIs and such matters.

Mr. Dalyell

Have the SSSIs been taken into account in the contingency plans for the transfer of Forestry Commission property to private ownership?

Mr. MacKay

The matter has not gone nearly as far as to consider the impact of SSSIs, but the commission, either for its own planting or for the making of grants to the private sector, must take the SSSIs into account and must consult the NCC in these matters.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle

When blanket afforestation is given the go-ahead over a large area, is any consideration given to environmental matters?

Mr. MacKay

Yes, indeed it is. The private forestry industry and the commission are more mindful now than perhaps they have been in times past about the environmental consequences of planting. The commission and the private sector take those matters into account along with the NCC and, where necessary, they have spoken to bodies such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other environmental groups.

Mr. Maclennan

The Minister has said that the economic rate of return for private forestry companies is a matter for them, but how does he propose to safeguard the public interest in wide-scale afforestation? Does it not strengthen the case for extending planning controls over forestry to ensure that all considerations which ought to be kept in mind, including conservation and proper land use, are subject to the review of the local authority?

Mr. MacKay

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, because I am aware of the problems in his constituency, which is heavily forested, like my own. The Forestry Commission consults the planning authority—the district council—when it comes to planting, along with the other bodies that it consults before it comes to a decision either about its own planting or about grants to the private sector.

Mr. Corrie

Will my hon. Friend accept that, with the enormous excesses of food production, not only in Britain but throughout Europe, and the enormous cost to Britain of timber imports, if in future the rural areas are to survive, there will have to be a move towards forestry and therefore grades of land that are not allowed to be planted now may have to be allowed to be planted in future? Does my hon. Friend accept that forestry, properly planted with a mixture of hard and soft woods, does not spoil the environment?

Mr. MacKay

My hon. Friend is right. My Department is considering redefining the land that might be freed for planting in future. Against the background of increasing food surpluses, forestry offers a sensible use of land and one which employs a lot of people in the countryside, which must be something that both sides of the House would welcome.

Mr. Home Robertson

It is supposed to be part of my job to make life difficult for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but just this once I am prepared to allow the Scottish Office in on the act. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the universal opposition to the idea of handing over the precious national asset of the Scottish Forestry Commission forestry enterprise to the private sector? Will he categorically reject the principle of privatising the forestry enterprise of the Forestry Commission? The hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend, the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that the matter had not gone that far, but just how far has it gone?

Mr. MacKay

The policy on the sale of Forestry Commission land was set out in a statement to the House by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State, the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), on 8 November 1984. That remains the position.

Mr. Steel

We have all read inspired reports about how the Secretary of State for Scotland has been fighting against his Cabinet colleagues to stop a change in that policy. It remains the policy at the moment, but is the Minister able to give an undertaking that it will remain the policy during the lifetime of this Government?

Mr. MacKay

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman does not have experience of Government matters and, therefore, perhaps does not appreciate that the Government keep their policy on all fronts continuously under review. There have been informal discussions between Forestry Ministers about various aspects of forestry policy, but, as I said a few minutes ago, the policy remains that stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr.