HL Deb 21 October 1942 vol 124 cc723-53

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government, whether, in view of the immense clearances of timber, especially soft wood, that are taking place in the Northern Highlands, a plan is being formulated by His Majesty's Government for replanting after the war, when the country will be practically denuded of trees; and whether His Majesty's Government think it a good plan, in view of the intense cold of the northern winters, to employ for this purpose large numbers of native foresters from the Tropics instead of Canadians who have hitherto done the work so well; and whether in view of all these problems it would not be advisable to form a separate Forestry Commission for Scotland: and to move for Papers.

The noble Duke said: My Lords, I do not raise this question of timber clearances in Scotland in any spirit of criticism. On the contrary, we are all fully alive to the dire need of timber for winning this war, timber which cannot now be imported in the same quantity as heretofore owing to the shortage of shipping space. No one objects to his timber having to go for the purposes of victory. But what we would like to know is that the Government are planning a little ahead in this matter, and that when the time comes, as it surely will, when the whole of Scotland is practically denuded of soft wood timber, the Government will have a big scheme ready by which these vast but necessary depredations on our home-grown timber can be eventually made good. A big scheme of reafforestation will be necessary all over Scotland, and plans for this necessity should be put in hand now.

The other question I have to raise is the way the Forestry Commission or the Timber Control Board, or whoever the authority may be, is setting about the method of cutting down these great woods. During the last few years we have had splendid work done throughout the Highlands by many thousands of the Canadian Forestry Corps. These hardened and picked men from Canada have been able to stand our northern winters and have made great strides in clearing the great timber resources of the north. Now it is proposed, instead of adding to the numbers of these magnificent Canadians already on the ground, who are proving so satisfactory, to send natives from British Honduras, in the region of the Equator in Central America, to do this cutting. They are expected to arrive here at the beginning of the northern winter, and huts have been built for them on high ground fully exposed to the northeasterly gales and blizzards which usually begin to blow early next month, with heavy snowfalls.

I do not suppose these natives of the Tropics have ever seen snow before. Yet they will be shipped straight from the Tropics to these arctic snowbound heights and expected to be out in all weathers cutting the timber. These men—probably fine men—who are used to cutting the mahogany forests of British Honduras, where no doubt they do magnificent work, will surely perish with cold or spend their winters in the local hospitals, adding to the troubles of our already overburdened hospital staff. On the surface the whole thing seems to be sheer lunacy, and that is what has given me doubts as to the judgment and capability of a purely English Forestry Commission to understand and grapple with these purely Scottish problems. A few more Canadians added to the numbers already there would have done the whole job in a much shorter time, and without the risks of illness and death that will surely attend this rash experiment. I am told on very good authority that the presence of Honduras foresters was tried in Dumfriesshire (a much warmer county than ours) and has not been an unmitigated success, and has, in addition, caused many complications of a different kind, as it naturally would.

I now come to another aspect of this question. There are to-day about 270 forests under State control in the United Kingdom. Almost one-half of these, 125, are in Scotland. The affairs of the Forestry Commission are directed from England, although almost one-half of the forests are in Scotland. If there should be, as in all probability there will be, a vast development of State forests after the war, Scotland's basic industry of agriculture might be placed in jeopardy by a Commission the vast majority of whose members are not conversant with Scottish agricultural needs and operate from far outside Scotland's boundaries. Scotland's foundation sheep stocks, and in some areas the cattle-breeding industry, might be menaced. The practice of the Forestry Commission is to plant up to about 1,000 feet above sea level. This obviously leaves the highest altitudes implanted and the greatest care would have to be taken to ensure that these higher altitudes were not left as breeding-grounds for vermin.

The agricultural interests in Scotland must be paramount, and the Agricultural Minister in Scotland—that is, the Secretary of State for Scotland—should be answerable to Parliament for all agricultural affairs. Under present arrangements he is personally divorced from any say in the administration, direct or indirect, of large tracts of forest land or forestable land. In Northern Ireland forestry was originally allotted to the Forestry Commission, but has later been transferred to the Agricultural Department in Belfast, as a result of hard experience. In the United States, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Belgium and Japan, forestry is closely associated with agricultural administration. Scotland's experience in government by these Commissions and Boards has not been too happy. The Boards of Health and Agriculture were superseded in 1929 by Departments under the Secretary of State for Scotland, and in 1937 the Committee of Inquiry, over which the late Sir John Gilmour, then Secretary of State, presided, declared unanimously that the Fishery Board should also give place to the ordinary type of departmental organization. This was done in 1939.

The present position is that a Backbench Member of Parliament, who is not necessarily associated with the Government of the day, answers any questions on forestry in the House of Commons. This is obviously ludicrous. Questions should be answered for Scotland by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and for England and Wales by the Minister of Agriculture. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be a much more practicable move to form a fully Scottish Forestry Commission, which would be completely under the control of the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State for Scotland, or, better still, become a Department of the Scottish Office, as the Scottish Board of Agriculture and the Scottish Board of Fisheries have now become. Englishmen cannot be expected to run forestry in Scotland, or to understand and properly work out purely Scottish problems. This instance of sending men from the Tropics to work in a northern winter is a case in point. I feel sure also, from what I have heard, that His Majesty's Government would welcome such a proposal as I have made, in the interests of all sane development in Scotland, especially after the war. Of the nine members of the existing Forestry Commission, I understand only two live in Scotland and have knowledge of Scottish problems; that is to say, there are seven Englishmen to two Scotsmen.

Obviously, preparations must be made now if there is to be a big scheme of re-afforestation after the war. Seeds from trees take time to collect and to extract, and the yield is erratic. Plants derived from the seeds have to be tended in nurseries for at least three years before they can be transplanted to the hills. All this emphasizes the need for thinking now about what will have to be done after the war, when labour will again be plentiful. No other country would have allowed its timber resources to be neglected as we have neglected ours. Development of our woodland resources is sufficiently important to be put in charge of a responsible Minister, which it is not at present. Scotland offers greater possibilities for afforestation than does England or Wales, by reason of its great stretches of moorland and mountain suitable for afforestation. Scotland's problem is a completely different one from that of England and Wales, and should therefore be looked after by a separate authority, fully conversant with Scottish problems.

I should like to quote from a letter that I received to-day from a member of your Lordships' House, the noble Earl, Lord Powis, who wrote to me on forestry problems. He wrote chiefly on the problem in England and Wales, but I thought the letter was so much to the point that I will read a part of it. This is what he says: I am sorry that I cannot be in London on Wednesday to support your Motion in the House of Lords as to replanting areas that have been recently felled. The subject of denuded woods in the Highlands applies also to England and Wales, though the forests are not individually as large generally. There are hundreds of acres of denuded woods which require replanting and which owners are either unable or unwilling to replant. The Government apparently take no interest in the replanting of these derelict areas. Owners who are endeavouring to replant are hampered by their woodmen being tempted away by a temporarily higher wage, and the men who should be employed in replanting give up permanent employment, and in some cases a future pension, to fall trees for the Government or contractors who have bought the owners' woods. Of course, felling is most necessary, but I view with grave anxiety these thousands of acres lying derelict for several years and growing scrub and weeds to the detriment of the soil, now rich in humus. I also fear that with so much felling the climate may be affected, and possibly serious droughts occur—probably not so serious as those which have occurred in America and elsewhere—through reckless cutting of timber. Even if the Government require all man-power for the Armed Forces and munition works, use should be made of the Italian and German prisoners, so that a beginning should be made and not left entirely till after the war. I understand that the Forestry Commission are looking for new land to plant. Why should they not undertake some of the derelict woods which owners do not intend to replant, and some help in the shape of prisoners of war and increased grants be given to owners who will undertake replanting immediately?

I thought that was a very sensible letter. I have also heard from the Duke of Buccleuch, who is President of the Royal Scottish Forestry Association. I do not know whether he is in favour of the scheme I am putting forward to-day—probably not. In his speech the other day to the Scottish Forestry Association, he said the Association proposed that the new private woodlands policy should incorporate the principle of the appointment of a competent forest authority charged with the direction of State forestry. The Forestry Commission, he said, has in the past been fully occupied with its obligations in connexion with State forestry, and has had neither the means nor the personnel to help effectively the interests of private forestry. Such a competent forest authority as my noble friend speaks of might, I think, well be a separate Scottish Forestry Commission. I beg to move.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVON SHIRE)

My Lords, my noble friend who has raised this Motion is entitled to an answer from the Government. On the other hand, the Government have no spokesman in this House, nor indeed in the other, who is fully conversant with forestry conditions. It has therefore been suggested that the convenience of the debate might best be served if I gave my noble friend such answer as I can now, and then, after the speeches of various Peers, who, I understand, desire to speak, my noble friend Lord Radnor, who is a member of the Forestry Commission, should reply to the general debate. I hope that that arrangement will suit the convenience of your Lordships. My noble friend's Motion really deals with three questions, first of all, is a plan being formulated to replace the woods of which the country is now being stripped on such a wholesale scale? secondly, the employment of natives of British Honduras, and thirdly, the desirability of setting up a separate Forestry Commission, or Forestry Department, in Scotland.

As regards the first part of the question, the Government are fully aware of the importance—I think I might say the vital importance—of working out a definite policy for the replacement of the timber of which we are stripping ourselves now, and for afforestation generally after the war. War conditions are quite inevitably making devastating demands upon our own home-grown timber. We are destroying capital to an appalling extent, and there will be a vital need for replanting after the war. The Paymaster-General, who is in general control of post-war planning, has got this matter very much in his mind, and plans are under active consideration. The Forestry Commission are also actively engaged in working out plans in detail for submission to the Government. I believe that few of your Lordships will fail to realize how important this is. Our woods, mature and immature, are being cut down wholesale now, and, in reply to that part of my noble friend's question, I can assure him that this matter is at the moment under very active consideration and that the Government are fully aware of the necessity of having plans ready.

Your Lordships will perhaps forgive me if I speak for one moment on rather a personal basis on this question. As your Lordships will be aware, the Government in their wisdom decided to acquire coal from its previous owners. On the day on which the coal passed into the possession of the Government—it may be a coincidence—the price went up 3s. But there is a prospect of previous owners of coal receiving substantial sums in cash, and it occurred to me that I could make no better use of this cash than by putting it into timber; but on making a closer investigation of this question I became aware that our present system of taxation made it impossible for a prudent man to make any such investment. I think my noble friend will probably agree that taxation has been a very potent factor indeed in stopping that replacement of our forests which is so very necessary unless the country is to be deprived a permanent resource of very great value. Rainfall may be affected, water supply certainly will be affected, and in many other ways the country would be seriously damaged unless replanting takes place. All these matters are under active consideration by the Paymaster-General.

My noble friend also raised the question of the employment of these natives from British Honduras. As every one of your Lordships is aware, the shipping situation has made it necessary to look to our own resources for more and more of the timber required for our war needs. The aim tint of home-produced timber which can be made available for the war effort is limited by labour and by equipment. As regards labour, both felling and sawing are skilled occupations. Those of your Lordships who have any experience of forestry will know that an unskilled man can very substantially diminish the value and the cubic footage of timber available in a tree, and unskilled sawing can very largely diminish the amount of timber which is available. We were very glad to avail ourselves of the services of forestry units offered by the Canadian and other Governments. The Newfoundland Government have also sent forestry units which have done good work. I have had an opportunity of visiting the large majority of these at work, and I can say they were doing very useful service. But Canada now requires skilled foresters as much as we do, if not more. The Forestry Commission have therefore had to look elsewhere for additional forestry labour. Some skilled labour was available in British Honduras, and these timber workers from British Honduras are not being used instead of workers from Canada, as my noble friend's Motion implies, but in addition to them. British Honduras, like other parts of the Colonial Empire, was desirous of making a contribution to the war effort. It was thought that one of the best forms in which it could make a contribution was by sending over skilled forestry workers, and the Government are deeply appreciative of what they have done.

It might very easily be felt, as my noble friend said, that these foresters from a tropical country could better be employed in the relatively warm climate of southern England rather than in Scotland where the winters are cold or possibly extremely cold. But there are two reasons why they are being employed in Scotland. In the first place it is desirable—indeed it is almost essential—to employ these men as a considerable unit rather than in twos and threes. There are obvious difficulties which will suggest themselves to your Lordships in employing these men in small scattered parties. It is highly desirable that they should work as a unit, and it is only in Scotland that large blocks of standing timber of sufficient extent to be worked by large units are available. The woods simply do not exist in southern England. There is another reason. It is that, unlike our own workers—such workers as have not been called up for the Army and so forth—these men from British Honduras, so long as they are over here, have no home ties, and it is therefore desirable to use them where local labour is scarce. The men have been for some few weeks now employed in this country, though they have not yet been employed in the extreme north of Scotland. Their health has been good. Although they have felt the cold, they are showing signs of being acclimatized, and special provisions are being made for their clothing and medical care and welfare. With all respect to my noble friend, his rather gloomy forebodings may prove unjustified.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

I hope they will.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

I am informed that people of the same race as these men have done extremely well in Alaska. The negro has shown a capacity to adapt himself to conditions in the extreme north of Canada, and it is reasonable to hope that this experiment may not prove a failure. The third question—a separate forestry control for Scotland—raises very important issues of policy into which the Government cannot go to-day. As I have told your Lordships, the Paymaster-General, having regard to his special responsibility for the study of reconstruction problems, is considering the whole question of future policy in consultation with the other Ministries concerned and with the Forestry Commission. The question whether or not any change in the existing administrative arrangements in regard to forestry is desirable is one aspect of the general problem which will certainly have to be covered, but it is not possible for the Government to make any definite statement in this connexion at this stage.

The Forestry Commission has now been in existence for some twenty-three years. It is within the knowledge of everyone that, owing to the Commission's efforts, large and flourishing plantations have been established both in Scotland and in England and Wales. I have had occasion to meet the Forestry Commission in various ways myself. The Commissioners have taken my wood since the war began, and before the war they had leased land from me for planting. While we can always find points to criticize, my own experience—and I believe it will be the same as that of most of your Lordships who have had dealings with the Forestry Commission—is that they are doing good and valuable work. There is no doubt that they have substantially improved the standard of forestry practice in these islands. I have always found them extraordinarily helpful in the way of giving advice and in other ways, and they have made a very substantial contribution to the nation's forestry resources. As I have said, they have been in existence only for twenty-three years, and they are not yet in a position to meet very much of our present demand for timber, but thanks to what they have done there is a great deal of timber growing up which would not have been available but for their effort.

Whether two or more forestry authorities in this relatively small island would improve the condition of affairs is at least arguable. I cannot say what the Government's view on this very important question of forestry administration may be, but it is not altogether the case that one can rigidly divide Scotland and England. It is quite true that part of Scotland may have a climate substantially colder than any part of England, but it is also the case that many parts of Scotland—the southwest coast of Scotland, Wigtownshire and so forth—enjoy a climate substantially warmer than, say, the High Peak of Derbyshire where the Forestry Commission operate on a large scale. You cannot take a line on the map and say that different conditions apply north and south of that line. I am not in a position to say more than that. I have answered to the best of my ability the questions my noble friend has asked, and for his convenience, perhaps, I may summarize what I have said. To his first question the answer is definitely "Yes." The Government do realize its importance, and are considering it very carefully. As to the second question, although it may appear to be a lunatic policy to employ these men from the Tropics in Scotland, there are, in fact, substantial reasons why that is being done. The woods are not there for them in the south to cut down, and the woods are there in the north. If we find that these men do get pneumonia and so forth, they will be shifted. The third point raises an important question of policy about which I am not yet in a position to reply.

LORD MOTTISTONE

My Lords, I desire to support the noble Duke's Motion, although it is with great temerity that I, as a mere Englishman, intervene in what is largely a Scottish debate. The noble Duke told me about his Motion, and as I have experience of forestry in the extreme south, and having heard what he has said, I have no doubt that most reasonable men would support the Motion. With regard to the importance of timber, the noble Duke who replied for the Government completely disarmed us by accepting the proposition whole-heartedly, and pointing out; wisely and truly, that the Government of which he is a member are destroying the hopes of forestry by unwise taxation. I hope that, in his private capacity, he will represent to the Government, of which he forms a part, that this is really an urgent matter, and that if they want to save the climate of this country from the grave dangers and disasters which have occurred elsewhere, they must think again on this question of how it is possible, under our present land system, for any owner desiring to do it to preserve the forests of this country.

We are all at one there, but I am afraid we part company when the noble Duke, who answers for the Government, says that there is much to be said for retaining our present system, which involves the employment of the natives of British Honduras, who live on the Equator, either in the fastnesses of Sutherland or for that matter in any of the high lands in England. This cannot be right. Some of your Lordships may have thought there must be a reason which we have not been told that makes it possible to employ a denizen of British Honduras to cut down trees or do other forestry work of the kind here. We know what the climate is on the 1000-foot line in the British hills and especially in Scotland.

When I was a boy they started sending troops from India to occupy the Portsdown forts near Portsmouth, and we were told then—I remember it well—that the medical authorities said it was very bracing for them. I suppose the noble Duke was told that it would be bracing for the people of British Honduras in Scotland, but he was too wise to introduce that argument. I warn the noble Duke he had better get these men from Honduras out quickly because of what happened in the case of the Portsdown forts. There the men got on very well being braced during the months of September, October and November, but when it came to the month of December they began to die of pneumonia, and when it came to the second December disasters followed. That was long before the present Paymaster-General had anything to do with such a matter. Our authorities had to abandon the whole plan and it has never been adopted since. I make this prophecy, that unless the Government give up this experiment, which was described by the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, as being sheer lunacy, they will be landed into the same controversy; not at once, because it takes a little time to break down the natural resistance of these strong people, but you cannot continue the experiment for long. As was pointed out to me by the noble Lord, Lord Southborough, when he was permanent head of the Colonial Office, it is no use pretending there is no difference between the effects of the climate in high latitudes and in low latitudes.

With regard to the argument of the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, that it would be wise to set up a Forestry Commission for Scotland, it seems to me he made out an overwhelming case. Surely it would be wise for Scotland to be advised in this matter by Scottish people and Scottish people only. Scotland is very different from England, especially in the matter of forestry. I have not had the opportunity of talking to my friends on these Benches on this aspect of the matter, but I should think they would agree that Scotland would be much better served if they had a Scottish Commission of their own. They would avoid such mistakes as putting people from British Honduras on to the slopes of the terrible hills in Sutherlandshire, and they probably would avoid other problems which are peculiar to Scotland. For all these reasons I strongly support the noble Duke. I would remind him that it is only an act of reciprocity on my part, because only a fortnight ago he pointed out how much better they manage the Home Guard and Civil Defence Forces in Scotland than we do and expressed the hope that England would follow their example. I, in return, say to him that here in England the Forestry Commission do very well for us, and they have not put any people from British Honduras on to our forests as yet! I hope the noble Duke will have the same good treatment from a purely Scottish Forestry Commission as we have had in southern England. I beg to support the noble Duke to the best of my ability.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

My Lords, I am very pleased that the Duke of Sutherland has had a supporter from one of the southernmost parts of England, but although I wish to support the noble Duke in most matters, I think I must correct both him and Lord Mottistone about the inhabitants who have come from British Honduras. It is not a recent experiment, as the Duke of Buccleuch, who I believe is to speak later, will tell you. These men have been for well over a year in Dumfries hewing timber. The customary temperature of Sutherland in the winter is probably a great deal lower than it is in Dumfries, but, as I have every means of knowing (because in my capacity any road that is blocked by snow has to be immediately reported to me), I can assure your Lordships there were just as many road blocks by snow in Dumfries this last winter as there were in Sutherlandshire. It was the hardest winter we have ever had. The temperature went down to below zero, yet these natives stood it very well. I do not say some of them did not go to have hospital treatment, but they stood the temperature very well. As regards their health I think that we in Scotland, who had the opportunity of observing them, were, if I may say so, agreeably surprised at the way they did stand up to the climate. I take it that the real reason we have to employ them is lack of man-power. We have got to make the best use we can of the material provided for us and if the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, assures us that the reason these men came to Scotland was that we wanted to employ them en masse and not scatter them among the population, I for my part think that is a very good answer and one which satisfies me.

As regards the first part of the Duke of Sutherland's Motion, I think we are all agreed that the Duke of Devonshire has reassured us in every way, but the part of the question to which I particularly want to call your Lordships' attention is the last part in which the Duke of Sutherland advocates the setting up of a Forestry Commission for Scotland. With that suggestion I am in whole-hearted agreement. I do not want to bring in any political controversies by pointing out what is a self-evident fact, that Scotland is a country and not a region, but I do want to point out that it is a country with different customs, different local authorities and a great many different laws to those in England, and I should have thought myself that the Forestry Commission would have been only too pleased to have their labours in Scotland taken from them and given to another Commission. May I give one instance showing the difference in the laws of the two countries? If you sell land in England you sell it without the timber, but if you sell it in Scotland the timber goes with the land or must go. There are totally different laws and customs particularly, as I say, in regard to local authorities and agriculture.

I have also another reason for saying why I should like to see a separate Forestry Commission. We have a Secretary of State for Scotland and if there is a Forestry Commission we shall thus have a mouthpiece in the Cabinet, and be in a very much stronger position to put forward our plans or our views and have them listened to by the highest authority. At the present time we have a Forestry Commission of which one quarter—two members—represent Scotland. The Forestry Commission in its inception was largely due to the vision and the foresight of the late Lord Lovat. I suppose Lord Lovat knew more about forestry than anybody in the kingdom of his tithe. He started the Commission and his hope—he often talked to me on the subject—was that the Forestry Commission would be enlarged until it became a Government body with a spokesman in the Government. What do we see now? Lord Lovat was succeeded first by Lord Clinton and then by Sir John Stirling Maxwell, who stands very high in his knowledge of forestry and all that forestry means. But now we have Sir Roy Robinson, a distinguished civil servant, at the head of the Commission.

Please do not think that I want to speak in any derogatory manner of the good work that Sir Roy Robinson does, or the good that is done by the Forestry Commission, but I want to point out the difference between the Forestry Commission at the present moment and the Forestry Commission which the late Lord Lovat hoped would emerge in the fulness of time as a Government Department. As the Duke of Devonshire says, we have no one here to answer for the Commission in this House, and I do not know who answers in another place. The Paymaster-General—it seems a peculiar title for anybody who is looking after the Forestry Commission—is said to be going into the whole matter. I earnestly hope that the Government will favourably consider the Duke of Sutherland's Motion, and I am glad that the Duke of Devonshire has not bolted or barred the door.

I am not only thinking of the present, I am thinking of the future, and I would like to give just one instance of what may happen. Mr. Mathers, the Labour Member for a Scottish constituency, asked the Prime Minister recently if the Crown lands in Scotland could not be dealt with by the Secretary of State for Scotland or by the Scottish Department of Agriculture. Instead of the favourable reply which had been hoped for, he got a non-committal reply. Not only the Conservative party in Scotland, but I believe every shade of political opinion in Scotland has been in favour of that transition; yet I see from something which appeared in the Glasgow Herald, which is generally very well-informed on these subjects, that owing to some law passed rather hurriedly in 1906 there will be a certain difficulty in getting the Crown lands passed to the Secretary of State for Scotland. In igo6 there were very few Crown lands in Scotland, now they cover a very considerable acreage. In 1906 it was thought that the acreage was so small that it was not worth while for the Secretary of State for Scotland to enter any caveat against the Crown lands being administered by Whitehall. Thirty years afterwards the situation is very different, and I hope very much that in thirty years' time our successors here will not say that it was due to the lethargy of the representatives of Scotland that a separate Commission for Forestry was not set up for Scotland.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

My Lords, there has been, and always will be, a ready welcome in Scotland for help from all parts of the Empire, and it has been the wish of the population in Scotland to offer the same friendship and hospitality to the men of the British Colonies as to those from other countries. There are, however, one or two points which ought to be borne in mind by the Government. It is perfectly correct that climatic conditions in the winter have been found very unpleasant by these men, and it has also to be recognized that the advantage from bringing them here, owing to their rather slow rate of timber production, is not very great. Further, I would urge on the Government that they should watch very closely the delicate social problems which inevitably arise when you settle in this country numbers of Creoles and Carib Indians from the Tropics.

I hope that the proposal for a separate Forestry Commission for Scotland will not be proceeded with, and I will try to show that it is a step in the wrong direction. I am sure that a very big majority of those who have devoted themselves to forestry and timber production in Scotland, and who have been helping to formulate proposals for a future forestry policy, would advise that there should be only one authority. It does seem essential to have one policy for the United Kingdom and one authority to carry it out, but within that authority there might be opportunities for bringing confidence to Scotland without the necessity of having a second authority. At the same time, the speeches of the noble Duke and the noble Earl do show as a fact that must be acknowledged that there is a definite body of opinion in Scotland which advocates a separate Forestry Commission for Scotland. I would like to suggest to the noble Earl who represents the Forestry Commission that he and his colleagues can meet the demands from Scotland and can restore confidence in the Commission by allowing a strong representation of Scotland on the Commission, and by arranging such devolution as they can with executive powers.

One of the best results of the noble Duke's Motion to-day and of recent notices throughout the Press in Scotland has been that far greater public interest is being shown in forestry. I feel sure that this will be welcome to all members of your Lordships' House. There is a great need for a policy after the war for the production of good timber on a large scale. There is need not only to secure an ample supply of timber for normal use but to provide a much bigger reserve than formerly for time of war, and at the same time to establish a happy and thriving woodland population. Under the proposals that have been submitted by the Royal Scottish and the Royal English Forestry Societies, forestry and timber production will secure their natural place in the economic life of the country, and the more important and enlarged forestry authority will be able to exercise a wider influence in securing the execution of a satisfactory policy and greater continuity. There is also the necessity for a forestry sense in the minds of woodland owners, the nation and Parliament, and it should become in future the fashion of the majority instead of being despised as the fad of a few. There will be a place for national and private forestry, and there will be room for a big contribution by everyone.

I am confident that if owners are asked to replant after the war and to provide reserves of timber the response will be tremendous, provided that Parliament frames a national forestry policy. I would affirm on behalf of landowners in Scotland that it is our intention to carry out to the full our obligations as trustees in the ownership of land and to replant and re-afforest these woodlands which we are being obliged to fell to-day in the national interest. In peace-time there is not much sympathy or encouragement for forestry, and in war-time these woodlands, which many of us have endeavoured to grow successfully for the provision of good timber, are ruthlessly massacred. We are thankful to be able to assist the nation by the provision of timber, but I do not think that any of your Lordships have heard or observed anywhere a word of thanks or acknowledgment to those people who have provided the timber that is so essential now. I do not suppose it is generally realized to what an extent, and how sadly, any long-term future forestry programme is completely shattered by felling within three or four years timber which should not be felled for another forty years or more. I hope the Forestry Commission will give every sympathy to the suggestions which have been put before them and will meet the desires and needs of Scotland without having a separate authority.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, I am very sorry that I cannot agree with my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch in the speech which he has just delivered. In the few remarks which I propose to make I hope that nothing that I say will lead anyone to think that I do not believe that the Forestry Commission, as at present constituted, have done their best, and are doing their best, to carry out their duties both for Scotland and for England. I do believe that to be the case. But we shall be faced in the future with a very different set of conditions to those even which obtained after the last war. During this war very large areas of forest have been cut down; far larger areas than in the last war. Even patches of wood, small plantations and so on have been taken away in the interests of the national need. The planting after this war there- fore will be on a very much larger scale than anything that was done after the last war.

As the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, has said, in Scotland we have very different conditions, and laws also I may say, to those subsisting in the south. We have different conditions under which our woodlands grow. We have far larger areas which are growing on the hillsides at levels which are very much higher than the usual levels in the south. Consequently we have a different set of conditions even so far as forestry itself is concerned. Scotland is very sparsely populated compared with England; our agricultural conditions consequently are different from the agricultural conditions of the south. The linking together of the afforestation of Scotland with agriculture is again on a different scale and under different conditions from those which obtain in England. If that be the case is it not logical that, just as in England there is a Ministry of Agriculture alongside the Forestry Commission, dealing with these two questions under the same roof, in Scotland we should have a separate Forestry Commission settled in Edinburgh under the same roof as the Scottish Board of Agriculture? To me that seems to be a logical conclusion and a conclusion which will lead to far more facile and far more efficient functioning than with a Ministry and a Commission whose headquarters are in London.

We have at the present moment a Committee or Commission sitting—of which Lord Balfour of Burleigh is the head—considering the question of sheep hill-farming. I should not be at all surprised, knowing the conditions in both the south and north of Scotland, if that Commission were to recommend that these hill-farms, which are doing very badly indeed, should be converted to forestry. I venture to suggest that with a Commission sitting in Edinburgh composed of Scotsmen who understand the conditions in Scotland and are expert in all the matters connected with the topics upon which I have spoken from the Scottish point of view, it will be necessary to set up a very much larger and much more important body in Scotland for dealing with this question. I suggest that if that is a separate Commission we shall get very much quicker and very much more efficient administration. But I do not mean to suggest that there should be no liaison at all—as my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch suggested may be the case if you had a separate Forestry Commission in Scotland—between England and the Scottish Forestry Commission. That would be absurd. I should expect the closest liaison to exist between those two Commissions, and that they should give each other all the information winch they possess and help each other in every way possible. I do feel, however, that in Scotland there is a strong body of opinion, which has been voiced in this House to-day, in favour of a separate Scottish Forestry Commission, with a view to planting after the war what is required in Scotland, and with a view to the more effective management of afforestation. I venture to hope that the Government will take note of this, and will consider setting up a separate Commission as soon as possible.

VISCOUNT MERSEY

My Lords, I understand that my noble friend Lord Radnor is going to reply, and I should like to take this opportunity in public of urging him to use what influence the Forestry Commission have with the Ministry of Supply to allow those who are trying to replant to get an issue of wire fencing within a reasonable time of their applying for it As your Lordships know, without a certain amount of wire fencing it is quite impossible to replant in rabbit-infested country; and the time which it takes to get leave from the Ministry of Supply to obtain wire fencing frequently delays planting. In my own case I was thrown out a whole Year by the long correspondence which I had with the Ministry of Supply. The Forestry Commission want replanting to be done, and they should surely be able to influence another Government Department to see that that policy is carried out. If my noble friend will use his influence in that direction, a great many people will be grateful.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

My Lords, I speak with sonic diffidence as a Forestry Commissioner, because I have not held that position for very long; but whereas that is a disadvantage in one way it may prove to be an advantage in another, in that I can look on the problems which have so usefully been brought to our attention by my noble friend the Duke of Sutherland in perhaps a rather more impartial way than would have been possible had I been a Forestry Commissioner of long standing. I will first answer my noble friend Lord Mersey. I will certainly do all I can to bring influence to bear in the direction which he suggests.

I should like next to deal with one part of the noble Duke's Motion which, so far as the Forestry Commission are concerned, is really irrelevant to the whole problem, and which has, I think unfortunately, loomed rather large in the earlier speeches in this debate—I mean, the question of the employment of natives of British Honduras. My noble friend who spoke for the Government dealt with this matter at some length from the Government point of view, but I think it is only fair that your Lordships should know that the Forestry Commission as such have no responsibility whatever for the employment of those natives of Honduras, and their employment, therefore, cannot be used as an argument for the formation of a separate Forestry Commission for Scotland. The facts of the case are that up to February, 1941, the Forestry Commission were responsible for the home supply of timber, acting as, agents for the Ministry of Supply. After that date the Ministry of Supply took over the organization which had been set up by the Forestry Commission, and which was a going concern and working satisfactorily. Before the Ministry of Supply took over that organization, however, the Forestry Commission had arranged for the Newfoundland forestry unit and for the Canadian Forestry Corps to come over to this country; and, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, stated, and as I know from my own information, those two units are doing most excellent work.

There were two main questions in the noble Duke's Motion which I think require to be dealt with with some care. The first is the question of the formulation of a plan for the future. The noble Duke who spoke for the Government has already said that the Paymaster-General, who is in charge of all post-war planning questions, has this matter very much in hand, and the Forestry Commission are working in the closest possible touch with him and giving him all the information they can. I can speak on this matter with some personal knowledge, because since I have been a Forestry Commis- sioner almost all the work which I have done on the Forestry Commission has been in connexion with these post-war plans. The Commission realize that it is of vital importance that we should be ready for the time when plans for future afforestation can be put in hand.

Those post-war plans will have to take account of a great many things. Among other things, we have had the effect of two wars, and the resultant devastation of cur woodlands which follows naturally from wars in which shipping plays a very important part. That will, of course, condition the scale of our rehabilitation of devastated woodlands and our afforestation of new land. Another point, which is of great importance from the point of view of the Forestry Commission, is the further provision of forest workers' holdings, which have been very successful in the past and which it is hoped it will be possible to extend considerably in the future: There are ancillary matters, such as education and research, and included in education will be the question of the provision of an adequate advisory service for private woodland owners. There is also the question of the marketing of forest produce, as well as questions of organization and administration. That is a fairly wide subject, but it is hoped to produce in the near future a scheme which is applicable both to private woodlands and to State forests. The preparation of such a scheme, however, is a long and difficult process. Forestry, by reason of the fact that the rotation is inevitably a long one, must look a very long way ahead, and that means devoting care and thought to the matter before any plan which is worth while can be made. The Forestry Commission will perhaps be forgiven, therefore, if they have not yet completed their plans for presentation to the Government.

Over and above that, there is another question which is of immediate moment, and of which noble Lords who have spoken will realize the importance. I think it is quite inevitable, and rightly so, that after the war replanting will have to take place on a very considerable scale—a scale considerably greater than anything undertaken in the past. For replanting, young plants are necessary, and the Forestry Commission have already taken such steps as they can in this matter. There is not only the difficulty of adequate labour, which is involved in almost every operation in these days, but there is also the difficulty of the provision of the necessary seeds. In the past, the Forestry Commission used to look to sources abroad for seed of such trees as Japanese and European larch, Corsican pine and Norway spruce. Those sources abroad are now no longer available, and that has created not inconsiderable difficulty. They have been able to collect a very considerable quantity of the seed of the Scotch pine in this country, and a sufficiency of European larch seed has also been gathered in this country. In addition to that, small quantities of Corsican pine have been collected, and a few other species, but those quantities are nothing like adequate. The seed of Douglas fir and Sitka can be obtained in all the quantities we require from Canada and the United States of America; and—what is perhaps rather interesting—for the first time that it has been recorded, so I understand, the Norway spruce has coned very prolifically practically all over this country, and it is hoped from that source to obtain adequate seed.

The Commission have something like 1,000 acres of nursery, practically all of which is under young trees, except those parks which need some change in the rotation, and in that case some form of foodstuffs is grown, generally potatoes. So that I think it may be fairly said that so far as taking steps for the future is concerned the Forestry Commission are doing everything in their power to ensure that we shall be able to have available, when the time comes for replanting on any scale, a sufficiency of plants for that purpose. I think that should be sufficient to show your Lordships that the Forestry Commission are fully alive to the necessity of having their plans well forward. Those plans, when completed, will be presented to the Government for their consideration and it is hoped that, in view of the experience in the Forestry Commission, the Government will pay due attention to what we have to say.

The next question, and perhaps the most important in the minds of the mover of the Motion and of other speakers, was the one regarding the formation of a separate Forestry Commission for Scot land. It is no new question, and I may say that the Forestry Commission are fully aware that there is a considerable body of opinion in Scotland in favour of such a division of the Forestry Commission. But before I get on to that subject in detail I think perhaps it would be useful to your Lordships if I said something about the work of the Forestry Commission in general, as it will make a background against which your Lordships can form your own opinion of what I have to say regarding a separate Forestry Commission for Scotland. As your Lordships are aware, the Forestry Commission was formed in 1919 after the last war, and I think as a result of the lessons of the last war. It functioned in the first instance over Great Britain and Ireland and, since the Irish constitutional changes, over the whole of Great Britain. It is of interest to note that very soon after its formation—I think it was—1he suggestion was put forward that forestry could quite well be supervised departmentally and piecemeal, as is suggested in the Motion now before your Lordships. That question was carefully considered by the Cabinet of that day and negatived. That puts the history of this question of a separate Forestry Commission right back to the very early days of the Commission.

In the years between the two wars, that is, between 1919 and 1939, the Commission did a great deal of work. As your Lordships know, there was nothing in the nature of State forestry when the Commission was originally set up. To-day there are actually 246 State forests, both large and small. The acreage that has been acquired by the Forestry Commission is a matter of some 1,144,000 acres, of which 714,000 will ultimately be forest, and of that figure 434,000 acres have already been planted. That is a fairly substantial achievement in the course of twenty years or so. It is a very large-scale transfer of land from private ownership to public ownership, and a very large change in the user of that land. I think it is fair to say that that considerable transfer of land has been achieved with a minimum of friction. There have, of course, been cases where there has been public outcry over something that the Forestry Commissioners have done, but I do not think it is wrong to say that those are the only occasions when the general public have realized that the Forestry Commission have acquired any land at all, and I think in most of those cases where there has been public outcry the matter has been satisfactorily settled.

In addition to what has been done by the Forestry Commission, there has been in operation a system of planting grants for private owners, and under that some 126,000 acres have been planted by private woodland owners, which is quite a material contribution to the forestry land of this country. Forest workers' holdings, to which I have already referred as being rather an important part of the policy of the Forestry Commission, amount to-day to some 1,471. The system of allowing a forest worker a house and a small acreage of land and guaranteeing him a certain number of days' work a year on forestry work has, on the whole, worked extremely well, and the individuals concerned are leading a healthy and a happy life.

In addition to that, the Forestry Commission have created four national forest parks. That is a departure to which I would like to draw your Lordships' attention, because I think it is a very important departure, and a very useful departure from what might be called ordinary forestry practice. It is a start by the Forestry Commission to fulfil what undoubtedly is a very important social need, that is, access to our countryside. The one forest park which has been in existence longest, that in Argyll, has been tremendously patronised, and it is interesting to note that more people have made use of the hostels there since the war than ever did before the war, though the numbers before the war were very considerable. It is therefore performing a very useful purpose in giving rest and refreshment to people who desire a holiday, and it is hoped that that policy of national forest parks may be ultimately extended to other parts of the country. Scotland of course has not been neglected. Of the 246 State forests 112 are in Scotland. I think it was the noble Duke, the Duke of Sutherland, who assumed that half the afforestable area in the hands of the Forestry Commission was in Scotland. That is not quite so. The actual acreage in Scotland is 276,000 out of 714,000, approximately just over one-third.

Another activity of the Forestry Commission, and a very important activity as it has now unfortunately proved to be, was to make preparations for the war and they were busy on that when war broke out. They had in fact partially completed a survey of our timber resources and of the resources of machinery to deal with that timber when it was felled. They also got out price schedules for standing timber. The system of licensing timber which is enforced to-day was their responsibility. A classification of categories of labour for reservation and all the other necessary preliminaries for the organization of forestry in war-time, and other various requirements were worked out by the Forestry Commission in detail, and are now working satisfactorily. The result was that when war broke out the forestry organization and the timber felling plans for this country were put into operation at once.

As I have already told your Lordships, the timber supply organization was taken from the Forestry Commission in 1941. Since then the Commissioners have continued to administer the forests in their charge and to prepare for reconstruction. In the first place, State forests are being very heavily exploited. State forests actually are being exploited at two or three times the rate of private woodlands, and that means a very great deal of work. In addition to that young plantations have got to be maintained and thinned and kept in proper order, and as far as possible protected against fire, in which respect there must be included a new danger—namely, fire from incendiary bombs. Planting has gone on to the extent that is possible with the restrictions on labour and other difficulties that have arisen, particularly of course the demands of agriculture which are such that much land which would normally in peace-time be afforestable land is being taken under the stress of circumstances for food production, although it may not be really suitable or economic for that purpose. In actual fact the programme has fallen from 27,30o acres in 1939–40 down to 17,100 acres in 1941–42. At the same time one is glad to say that a certain amount of private planting has been going on, and grants have been forthcoming for that purpose. Progress has also been made with certain rather interesting technical problems. One of the most interesting perhaps is deep ploughing as a preparation for afforestry. This has enabled a great deal of land hitherto considered unsuitable for planting to become potentially afforestable land. It also has the advantage that it reduces the amount of weeding necessary, it reduces mortality amongst young trees, and accelerates growth in the early stages.

That is the work of the Forestry Commission very briefly, and that is the background against which I think one must study this problem of separate Forestry Commissions. It is quite true that at the present moment there are only two members of the Forestry Commission who are resident in Scotland, but that does not necessarily mean that there are only two members of the Forestry Commission who have knowledge of Scottish conditions; indeed, I myself up to shortly after the beginning of the war was a landowner in Scotland. Still it is quite true that the proportion of Scottish Forestry Commissioners is rather low, and it is the hope of the Commission that we may in the near future add one or possibly more Scottish members to the Commission. But I would also point out to the noble Duke that there is a statutory provision that one Assistant Commissioner shall be in Scotland, with an office in Scotland. Assistant Commissioners in the organization of the Forestry Commission have a very large responsibility for the ordinary executive work, and therefore there is to that extent at least the semblance of a Forestry Commission in Scotland. I would also point out to the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, who laid stress on the necessity of closer liaison, that the closest possible liaison in forestry work can be achieved by unity rather than division, and that if you want real liaison in forestry between Scotland and England what you need is one Forestry Commission for the two countries.

On the broad question of two Forestry Commissions I would suggest to your Lordships that it is very desirable that this matter should not be considered lightly, or decided without a full knowledge of the facts and of the tasks which will have to confront all those concerned in forestry in our post-war world. It is not easy to say what the post-war world will be like, but I hope nobody will make up his mind without due consideration. There are several conditions which come to my mind. The first, of course, is that forestry and the provision of timber is of national importance. I do not think even the most ardent Scotsman would disagree with me when I say that when one talks nationally we must agree that England and Scotland stand together and are a nation together. Timber is essentially national, and therefore has to be dealt with nationally. Experience in the past war, and still more experience in this war, makes clear the importance that timber has, in war-time, and particularly the important part home-grown timber plays in our war-time economy. I cannot give the actual figures—it is not desirable to do so—but there is no question that the supplies of English timber have reached into some millions of tons, and to that extent imports have been saved and shipping made available for other purposes. These are considerations of national importance and not merely of parochial importance, though I would not like it to be inferred from that observation that Scotland is a parish.

The experience of the Forestry Commission is that it has been found necessary, both in drawing up pre-war plans and in the actual course of timber supply, to have central direction unless confusion is going to result. In no other way can the national needs be supplied satisfactorily and timber directed to where it is required with economy and speed. Indeed it has happened in this war that timber has been moved from Scotland to England, English timber has gone to Wales, Welsh timber has gone to England, and completing the roundabout, I believe England has even had the temerity to export some timber to Scotland. Similar considerations apply to the problem of reconstruction. We have to plan in the first case to meet national requirements and also to see that the proposals we put forward are equitable as affecting landowners all over the country both in England and Scotland. It would create rather a difficult situation should there be a separate Scottish Forestry Commission which gave to Scottish landowners and woodland owners more favourable conditions than those which English landowners could obtain from an English Forestry Commission, or vice versa. That is one more argument in favour of a single authority.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

We have a Scottish Board of Agriculture and that seems to work in with the English Ministry of Agriculture. Why should it be different in the case of forestry?

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I will deal with the question of the Board of Agriculture in a moment. It has also to be remembered that rapid action will be required as soon as the war ends, and it has to be considered whether a change in the administration will facilitate or impede the rapid action that will be necessary. The noble Duke's Motion lays emphasis on the large-scale fellings in the Highlands of Scotland, but I would not like your Lordships to go away with any idea that Scotland is the only country where large-scale fellings have been going on. In fact, English fellings compare with Scottish fellings in the ratio of two to one. Therefore England is rather more interested in this problem of felling even than Scotland.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

Will the noble Earl allow me to say that every single tree in my county will be removed? That is, every single soft-wood tree.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I am not dealing with one county only but with the whole country, and it must be realized that there has been very considerable felling even down to the last tree in several areas, though the fact that large blocks of woodlands are found in Scotland perhaps to a greater extent than in England—largely owing to the foresight and enterprise of Scottish landowners—may make fellings there seem greater than appears on the surface in England. It is the experience of the Forestry Commission that a single service for the United Kingdom has very considerable advantages. Your Lordships will appreciate that if the forestry service were divided into two comparatively small services there would not be very great prospects of advancement for junior members of the staff, whereas if there is one big service a man can go from England to Scotland or from Scotland to England, so that there are more opportunities for advancement and therefore more encouragement to the staff. Similar considerations apply to research. However close liaison there may be between two separate bodies there can be no doubt that research under one authority will be more effective than under two bodies. Another advantage is that plants can be transferred from one country to another as and when required, with no difficulty in the passing of money or the making up of accounts or anything of that sort. All these details, which make for simple working, go to support the argument that a single Forestry Commission has proved in practice to be the best method of dealing with the forestry problem in the two countries.

There is no doubt that forestry has come into considerable prominence as the result of war-time activity. There is equally no doubt, if past experience is to be of any value, that after the war the position will need to be defended, and defended very hotly. Our experience after the last war was that as soon as the need for timber began to diminish and imports became available again, home forestry receded into the background. The Forestry Commission in its infant days was more than once threatened with extinction. At times it was starved of finance and at other times it was overfed with finance. It was only the fact that there was a Commission which was able to speak and speak strongly for forestry, and which did speak strongly, that enabled some form of continuous policy to be pursued in this country. The suggestion put forward is that the Forestry Commission for Scotland should be placed under the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. If I were a Scotsman I should view such a suggestion with the greatest horror.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

I did not suggest that. I suggested that there should be a Department of Forestry under the Secretary of State for Scotland.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

Even if it were a Department under the Secretary of. State I should view it with the greatest horror. The Secretary of State for Scotland has many important questions with which he has to deal and forestry would be to him a comparatively minor one. In times of stress it would undoubtedly be lost sight of and forestry would take its place low down on the list of important things. There would be no one who would really fight for it. If you have a Forestry Commission constituted as it is now, or possibly modified in some way or other, you will find that that Commission, with the whole strength of Great Britain behind it, will fight for forestry in a way that no section of a Department ever can, or will, fight. I hope that particular point will be borne in mind most carefully by those who are asking for a separate Department for Scotland and that they will realize that, although in theory it may seem very nice, yet in practice it may easily prove that the desire for separation may be very harmful indeed to the great industry which they have got in Scotland in their forestry land.

May I finish on a note of warning which has no real connexion with my general argument regarding Scotland but is a general point regarding post-war planning? The Forestry Commissioners are quite clear in their own minds that felled areas of woodland will have to be replanted after the war unless there are very good reasons to the contrary. The attention of the Commission has been drawn to a certain amount of speculation which has gone on in woodlands with the intention of reaping a quick profit by felling the trees on the land purchased, with the intention, of course, subsequently to leave the land derelict. It is only right to point out that anyone who has indulged in speculation of that nature—I do not say all purchases of land for felling trees are purely speculative, but there are cases—

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

Where?

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I am informed that there are cases. It is only fair to point out to any who are doing that sort of thing that they would be wise to consider whether they might not find difficulties in replanting such areas.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, I wish to contribute one word only to this very interesting debate. That there is a feeling in favour of having a separate Forestry Commission in Scotland is evident from speeches which noble Lords have made to-day. But I would suggest that from a planning point of view forestry should be handled from one point. Then, if there is anything wrong, put it right at the centre and not by departmentalizing forestry.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

My Lords, I have only to thank His Majesty's Government for stating that they are considering this matter of a separate Forestry Commission for Scotland. I think that is very hopeful, and we shall wait with interest to hear what they have to say about it in the future. It was also stated on behalf of His Majesty's Government that a plan in being made, and is going ahead, for the replanting of limber now being cut down, and for the planting of other timber. I am very glad indeed to hear that this is being done. Those are, in my view, two very important points, and I am gratified to know that they are being considered. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.