FORESTRY COMMISSION'S REPORT. (Hansard, 22 June 1943)

§ VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

My Lords, it is obviously impossible for us to consider in detail this Report of the Forestry Com-mission which has only been printed, I think, during the last month. I am rather puzzled as to how the noble Earl sitting on the Front Bench is going to reply to this Motion by my noble friend, but I do hope that at an early date the Government will afford facilities in both Houses to enable this very important question of the future of the woodlands of this country to be debated in all its aspects. I hope also that nothing will be done which will act as a deterrent to the private owner of woodlands who is prepared to put his house in order, who is prepared in the public interest as well as his own to develop his woodlands on sound economic lines, and who is prepared to co-operate with the Government of the day in pro viding what is recognized as an essential national service. But I would like to add this, that in the meantime nothing should be done by the Government, or indeed by the Forestry Commission, which would tend to put into the hands of the Government, with reluctance on 41 the part, shall I say, of relatively poor landowners, land that has been cleared of timber during the period of the war in the national interest if there is a fair chance of private enterprise resulting in the replanting of these areas and their continuance under private control.

What I am really after is this. Many of these areas are cleared. In fact, the policy of the Forestry Commission and of the Government to-day is rapidly to put on the market for essential national requirements timber of almost every description and they do not want to be troubled with leaving stores of half-grown timber when the process of clearing the whole is much more rapid and in some respects perhaps in certain areas less destructive. But there is a danger, a very real danger, of what I may call the interim policy of the Government being interpreted as rendering relatively valueless or greatly depreciating the value of those cleared areas, and thereby forcing them into the hands of the Government when, with due encouragement and fair treatment, they would continue under private control and be cultivated in the future as they have been in the past as privately owned woodland. I mention this because there is a growing fear, at any rate in the south-western counties, that this drastic felling of half-grown, immature timber may put it into the minds of the Government to acquire those areas for replanting as part of the Government forests in days to come, the sale being in effect a forced sale simply because the private owner cannot afford at any rate in the early future to undertake the replanting.

§ THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE)

My Lords, I have no difficulty in giving my noble friend the assurance for which he asks. This weighty Report to which he paid a very proper tribute in no sense binds the Government. The Government policy on forestry was announced in December last by my right honourable friend the Minister without Portfolio, in another place, and although that announcement was important it went into no detail. He then laid down, and I think with the concurrence of the great majority in your Lordships' House and in another place, the necessity for a vigorous forestry policy after the war. As my noble friend pointed out, the statistics quoted by the Forestry Commission must make it plain to everybody that a vigorous policy will 42 be required. But what that policy will be, and whether it will coincide with that recommended by the Forestry Commission in every respect, is a matter on which the Government arc uncommitted. They must remain uncommitted until they have had an opportunity of studying the Report carefully and of fitting it into the general scheme of post-war reconstruction.

As I pointed out in the debate on agriculture the other day, that is necessary in regard to all this post-war policy. These matters cannot be considered in watertight compartments. Although I am not suggesting that we can come to no decisions at all, I do not think we have got yet to the period when it is possible to give a detailed reply to a very weighty and complicated document like this. Indeed, this Report raises a whole number of other questions some of which I agree with the noble Earl would be highly debatable and are beyond questions of pure forestry. There is, for instance, the problem of how you can maintain continuity in forestry policy without impairing the control by Parliament of the national finances in the annual Budget. That is a very big question which is pertinently raised in the Commission's Report. Then there are important questions like the future of hill sheep farming, and I would remind your Lordships that the Committees that have been appointed on that subject have not yet reported. I think we shall be bound to wait until we know what these Committees have to say before forming a conclusion on that subject.

There are also raised in this Report issues about the rights of private property and of just treatment of individuals which I think go beyond mere questions of forestry policy and which will demand careful consideration from every aspect. I agree with my noble friend Viscount Bledisloe that it is very important to encourage the individual owner, and especially the small owner, to pursue an up-to-date forestry policy and to replant, if possible, his woodlands which have been felled. I think that the Commission point out that in the inter-war period 120,000 acres of woods which were cut down in the last war were replanted by private owners. If we want to get that done again and to improve upon it, then I think it is very important to see that the private owner feels that he would be justified in embarking on the necessary capital expenditure for such planting. That will 43 not be done unless he feels that he is going to have a square deal. I can assure my noble friend Viscount Bledisloe that there is no ulterior motive at all such as appears to have crossed his ingenious mind as to the policy of clean felling that has been encouraged. As he himself mentioned, clean felling, although possibly not in many cases the right policy from a long-term forestry point of view, was the right policy in the circumstances of this war. The timber was all urgently required for one purpose or another and clean felling was the quickest and most economic way of getting it.

So the position is that we have here this very weighty and authoritative Report for which I am sure your Lordships will desire me to express the thanks of the Government and of this House to the eminent gentlemen who were responsible for it. That Report will receive most careful consideration from the Government and I have no doubt from your Lordships, many of whom are themselves experts on forestry. I hope very much that we shall have a debate here on the subject at a later date. Indeed I believe my noble friend the Duke of Sutherland has given Notice of a Motion that would raise the question. Then it will be possible to have a debate which in itself will be a valuable contribution to the solution of the problem. During all the time that the matter is under consideration—and I think it must be some time because there are big issues involved—the Government will always be ready to receive representations from authorities such as my noble friend the Earl of Mansfield mentioned, and indeed from anybody who is entitled to be heard on the subject. The Report itself suggests that certain consultations should take place. Those consultations will take place and also consultations with other people. Anyone who has a right to be heard in this matter will be heard by the Government and I can assure your Lordships that all points of view, all relevant considerations will be carefully weighed by the Government.