FORESTRY POLICY.

HL Deb 13 February 1946 vol 139 cc479-528

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD rose to call attention to the recent declaration of the forestry policy of His Majesty's Government; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the reason for the appearance upon the Order Paper of the Motion standing in my name is that it appears absolutely necessary that those who contemplate replanting or extending the acreages of their woodlands should have some further information as to the extent to which His Majesty's Government is prepared to implement and adopt the recommendations contained in the Report and Supplementary Report of the Forestry Commission.

I have sent to the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, who, I understand, is to reply, a number of questions which are, I think, pertinent, but before coming directly to them, I think it will be required that I should give some slight preliminary explanation. The consumption of wood in this country has been rising uninterruptedly for the past century, even between 1850 and 1913, when consump tion increased fivefold, and it is still increasing rapidly. The introduction particularly of plastics, so far from reducing the need for timber, has increased it. Now of all the timber used in this country today, or rather up to the time of the war, only some 4 per cent. was produced from our own resources.

We know from the ancient chroniclers that most of the country was at one time under timber. It might be thought that the destruction of this timber throughout the ages had been no worse than that which had taken place in other European countries, but when one examines the figures relative to these countries, one finds that that is not the case. To-day, or rather up to the beginning of this war, only some five per cent. of the whole of this country was under timber. Holland, which is no doubt familiar to some of your Lordships, does not at first sight, when one travels through it, appear to be very heavily wooded, but nevertheless the amount of land that is under timber amounts to 7.8 per cent., or relatively 50 per cent. more than in Great Britain.

When one considers Belgium, a highly industrialized country and one which has, I believe, the densest population in Europe, one is surprised to find that their land under timber up to the war was no less than 18.8 per cent. This was accounted for by the vast forests of the Ardennes, a district which is undeservedly less known than it should be. Germany, our bitter enemy in two successive wars, had no less than 27 per cent. of her area under timber, and it was to those great timber resources that she owed the fact that she was able to carry on those two wars for so long. Other more northern countries have, of course, even greater amounts of timber. Sweden, I believe, has 56 per cent. of its territory in woodlands, and Finland not far short of 70 per cent. When we regard the Western European countries we cannot feel satisfied at the comparison with our own, a comparison in which we appear very badly.

From the economic point of view, if one takes the five years 1934 to 1938 inclusive, the average annual value of timber imports to this country was a fraction less than £63,000,000, and while I do not suggest that all the wood consumed here could have been produced in this country, there is no doubt that by far the greater proportion of that £63,000,000 could have been so produced. Then there is a question, even more important than the question of exchange—the employment that can be given by a really prosperous timber industry. It is generally accepted on the continent of Europe that roughly speaking 100 acres of woodland, properly looked after and in full production, will give direct employment to one man, while if one takes all the ancillary processes of conversion into account, every 100 acres produces employment for five men; that is to say, every 20 acres in proper production means the employment of one man.

The Forestry Commission's figures for this country, as contained in their extremely illuminating Report, show that we now have some 3,000,000 acres of woodlands, of which they—I think rather unnecessarily pessimistically—decide that 1,000,000 is really not worth consideration. That leaves us, according to them, with some 2,000,000 acres of productive or what ought to be productive woodland, an amount which they would like to see raised for the whole country to 5,000,000 acres. As I hope to show your Lordships in a few moments, I do not myself regard this figure of 5,000,000 acres as anything approaching an optimum figure. But, taking the Commission figures, and on the assumption—which is correct—that there is approximately twice as much land under timber in England as in Scotland, what do we find would be produced in the way of employment by 5,000,000 acres, properly looked after? We find that we would have an industry employing directly in the woods and forests 50,000 men, and indirectly another 200,000. An industry of a quarter of a million people would be obviously one of the major industries of this country.

Looked at from the point of view of my own native Scotland, which naturally must loom somewhat large in my eyes, the importance of the timber industry there can be and should be very much greater than it is in England, for several reasons: partly because, on the whole, we have a better climate for timber than has the greater portion of England; because we have far more land suitable for conversion to timber, and because much of that land is really not suited to agricul ture or, if not unsuited to agriculture, could be employed to the national interest very much better in growing trees. If one were to assume that Scotland were to have in the future 2,000,000 acres of timber land, that would mean that the timber industry there would employ fully 100,000 men. I have said that the Continental figures are 100 acres of woodland for one man directly and another four men indirectly employed, but actually most experts are of the opinion that in this country, where conditions are far better for the growing of trees than over most of Europe; we would be able to employ even more people per 100 acres, directly and indirectly. However, I do not propose to work upon any such assumption but merely to stick to the proportions of 100 and 20 respectively.

In Scotland the agricultural industry to-day employs, according to the latest figures, a little less than 120,000 persons. A proper timber industry, therefore, even on the Forestry Commission's figures, would employ nearly as many people as agriculture. And it must be remembered that agriculture, unfortunately, can hardly be expected to remain at quite such a high employment level as it has in the past. Undoubtedly a small though not really unimportant number of people will be displaced by the conversion of pure grazings to woodlands. I know that a certain number of my farming friends in Scotland, if they get to the length of reading so far in my remarks, will begin to foam at the mouth, because there is a certain body of agricultural opinion that is extremely averse to the turning into timber-land of any ground that can carry a head of sheep. It has to be admitted that there have been certain instances in the past of tactlessness on the part of the Forestry Commission.

Some farms, particularly in the south of Scotland, which have been acquired by the Commission and largely afforested, were of such good agricultural value that they ought to have been left for the production of mutton; there can be no doubt about that. No more land of that description should be removed from cultivation. But it is equally true to say that there are hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of acres of land, particularly in the north-west, west and south-west, which at the present time are carrying a very light stock of sheep and which, from the national point of view as well as from the point of view of the owners, would be far better under timber. Although, particularly in the south of Scotland, one may think in terms of sheep per acre, when one goes north and west one has to think in terms of acres per sheep. In the remote areas it may well be that one finds ten or even fifteen acres of rough moorland are required to nourish one sheep, and in some parts it is practically impossible for sheep to pick a living at all, except for a very few weeks in the height of summer. If one takes an expanse of land of perhaps 10,000 acres on which there are a few hundred sheep, at best a thousand or more, employing perhaps two shepherds, it would be better if even a quarter of that land could be put under timber.

As I have said, 2,500 acres of afforested land would employ one man per every hundred acres or twenty-five men on the ground as against the two shepherds employed on 10,000 acres not afforested. That is obviously, from the national point of view and from the point of view of employment, a very much better proposition. Not very long ago—in fact at the end of last year—I motored through a considerable portion of the south-west of Scotland and I was struck with the vast areas that I traversed where there were only very light stocks of sheep, and a great many of those sheep did not look particularly healthy. The ground was damp; the very heather was not growing robustly. But it was ground which, although it could never have been made really suitable for sheep, would have been, as to much of it, first class from the point of view of timber production.

For myself, I believe that we could in Scotland have 4,000,000 acres with advantage under timber, employing directly and indirectly 200,000 men; that is to say, employing a number equal to that employed in agriculture and mining combined. The effect of such development on the national life of Scotland, and the effect of a similar development (which of course would have to be on a smaller scale) in England, need not be stressed. We can, and should, set up another major industry which would be to the advantage of the country from every point of view. There is also the point, which is perhaps a side issue, but which is nevertheless a very important one, that the water resources of many portions of this country are in serious danger of permanent deple tion. The afforestation of much of our land would go a long way towards curing this shortage of water, which I do not think is likely to be remedied in any other fashion. Again and again one sees in the papers rather terrifying accounts of what is happening, particularly in England, where streams which, within the memory of man, were running to full capacity are now almost or completely dry. The water is being drawn from deep down far faster than it is being replenished by the natural rainfall. This, to a considerable extent, might be remedied by afforestation.

Now I propose to come directly to the questions which I have addressed to the noble Earl who is to reply. The first and most important question is that of administration. As your Lordships are aware, until the passing of the recent Forestry Act, forestry in this country was under the guidance of a virtually independent body, the Forestry Commission, whose functions, as far as policy are concerned, have now been transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture in England and to the Secretary of State for Scotland in his capacity as Scottish Minister of Agriculture. A good many of us, while we fully recognized the shortcomings of the Forestry Commission, did not view the transfer of forestry to the agricultural departments with any great enthusiasm. We thought they had already quite enough to do and we thought forestry was likely to become merely the tin can tied to the dog's tail. What we really do want to know is whether those suggestions, which were very strongly urged at the time, are going to be put into effect, that is to say, that in each country there is to be a Department of Forestry, with its own staff, completely separate from the Department of Agriculture in Scotland and the Ministry of Agriculture in England, and answerable only directly to the Minister concerned and not to any agricultural permanent secretary or head of department. If that is not to be the case, then I have no hesitation in saying that we are not going to have the development in forestry which we need to have. That is the first question I put to the noble Earl.

The second question involves the administration of the system of dedication which was contained in the Report of the Forestry Commission and which we are led to believe His Majesty's Government have adopted. This dedication is in itself comparatively innocuous if it is administered according to sensible rules, but it has within it the power to render almost all private forestry vain and futile if it is to be administered by officialdom with the lack of vision that is too often found in its ranks. There are four conditions attached to dedication. The first is that the areas in question must be dedicated for all time to come primarily to the production of timber. It has been understood that these areas are to include areas recently felled, although no one has any idea how far back the word "recently" is supposed to go. Although that was not actually in the list of questions I put to the noble Earl, I should be obliged if he could say now, or if at least he would find out how far back this dedication is to be carried.

There is the first rather difficult problem. Who is to decide what land ought permanently to be put under timber? Practically all of us who have had considerable areas felled have a certain proportion of land which ought not to be replanted. Sometimes it is because trees have obviously not done well there, the land is of poor quality and could not be improved economically for the purpose of carrying timber again. In other cases, strips have interfered with agriculture. In others—and these are perhaps the most numerous—the woods have been long, twisting and narrow, which would involve an expense in fencing, if they were replanted, totally out of proportion to the area to be enclosed.

The second, and perhaps the most important, of the four conditions is that the landowners should agree to work to a plan to be approved by the forest authority. There is nothing per se unreasonable in that, and all well-administered estates already work to a plan, but we must have an assurance that we will not have undue, unnecessary and unjustified interference by officials in the drawing up of a plan and in day-to-day administration. I should like the noble Earl to give an assurance, if he can, that provided the general outline and administration of any owner's plan is on sound lines he will be allowed to develop it, as far as general detail is concerned, without undue let or hindrance from the Government Department concerned.

The third point is that the owner is required to employ skilled supervision. That, again, is completely reasonable, provided always that a reasonable view is taken of what skilled supervision means. There are, as your Lordships know, many men who have no degrees, diplomas or technical qualifications in forestry, but who are extremely well able to look after woods, and have been doing so for many years past. It should be accepted that where woodlands have someone in charge of them who obviously knows his job—whether he be an owner or an employee of the owner—the mere fact that this man may not have technical qualifications should not render those woods liable to be classed as not being properly looked after.

The fourth and last point is that proper accounts should be kept. Here, again, all well-looked-after estates do keep proper forestry accounts, but it would be unreasonable to expect small estates, particularly, to keep them in a very minute form. The Forestry Commission drew up a form which I think would be completely adequate and by no means a severe burden. I should like the assurance that a form of that kind would be acceptable by the Government Departments, so that the smaller owner may not be plagued by the spate of returns which has done so much to turn the farmer's hair white throughout the whole country.

Next we come to the question of what assistance is going to be given in replanting. The Forestry Commission originally proposed, by a rather complicated formula, that 25 per cent. of the excess of expenditure in any year should be refunded to the owner of dedicated woodlands. That met with not very much enthusiasm in England, and still less in Scotland where the vast majority of estates regard their timber as capital and as coming under Schedule B rather than under Schedule D for Income Tax purposes. After considerable pressure, the Forestry Commission agreed to adopt, as an alternative, a planting grant of £7 10s. per acre. I would like the noble Earl to say whether that figure has been accepted by His Majesty's Government, or, if not, what figure it is proposed to offer and, also, whether the Forestry Commission's further recommendation of 2s. 6d. per acre of maintenance grant for the first 15 years of the life of the new plantation is also approved.

To turn for one moment to my King Charles's head, which is that planting grants are not really so urgently necessary as is the provision of loans for the purposes of planting, are the Government prepared to make available fairly large sums, at a greater rate per acre than £7 10s. od., of loans, preferably interest-free, until the timber is cut? The difficulty is that even if they are given at quite a low rate of interest—and the Forestry Commission, while recommending such loans, also suggested they should be more or less at a current rate of, perhaps, 3½ per cent.—particularly when the smaller owner is borrowing, say, £10,000 for planting, it is going to mean a very considerable drain upon his exchequer from the point of view of interest. Taken at 3½ per cent., £10,000 means £350 per annum of interest upon which, for the first twenty years at least of the life of the plantation, there will be absolutely nothing to be got back. One cannot expect that the thinnings from a plantation will even pay for the labour of doing such thinning until a plantation is at least 20 years old. One may have to start at 12 or 15 years to do one's thinning, and, to begin with, it is a dead loss. Thinnings can be sold later for stakes and the like, and, later still, as pit props, but not until after 20 years will the numbers obtained do more than pay the cost of extraction, if that.

Loans, to be of any real use, ought to be of not more than 2 per cent., unless, as I suggest, loans carrying interest at 3 per cent. or 3½ per cent. are interest free until the timber is eventually cut. In order to safeguard the taxpayer, the liability to repay loans would, of course, have to be made a burden upon the property in cases of change of ownership. It is difficult to say what the cost of replanting is likely to be. It cannot well be less than £20 per acre except in extremely favourable conditions. In many cases, particularly in the remote areas, it is likely to be £25 or even more, and the provision of the capital for this replanting is going to be a matter of very great difficulty for most landowners. The £7 10s. grant will certainly be a great help if adopted by the Government, but a greater help would be the provision of loans either at a low rate of interest or with the interest payment suspended until the crop is cut.

What of the rather small amount of woodland that remains in this country? Great devastation was done in the war of 1914–18, and still greater in the last war, owing, in both cases, to the U-boat menace and the difficulty of importing the usual 96 per cent. of our timber consumption. The result is that today there is very little high forest or standing timber left, and only a comparatively small amount of younger woodlands which will soon qualify for that description. We are told that the Timber Control may demand, because of difficulties of shipping and our resuming imports from our Northern suppliers, that even more of these woods be cut. I have no hesitation in saying that if there is to be any further depletion of standing timber or good-sized pit wood, it will be resisted bitterly by landowners in this country.

Up to date, there has hardly been a case of the Timber Control having to obtain a compulsory order. No one can say that landowners have not freely and willingly given their timber at very moderate prices to the Government without any attempt to hold out for extra prices. Nor, except in very few cases, have they attempted to stop their woods being cut. But we must recognize that the timber resources of this country, resources particularly vital to us in the event of another war, are now so low that, in the event of such a war, our position would be infinitely worse than in either of the last two wars. We have to bear in mind that, although it is the hope and prayer of everyone in this country, and most people in the world, that never again will there be a really large-scale war—certainly not within the lifetimes of our sons or grandsons—if such a war does come it is certain that our communications with Northern countries will be interrupted as badly, or even still more badly, than they have been in the past. We shall find again that we are thrown back largely on our own resources and, when we come to investigate those resources, we shall find them largely inadequate for our purpose.

Are His Majesty's Government prepared, therefore, to decree that no timber in the future, even when the Timber Control has ceased its operations, is to be cut other than by licence, and that permission will not be given except where the timber is either mature and going back, or of a kind that is unlikely to be of use in emergency? Are they prepared, in such an event, to give some form of compensation to owners who will be deprived otherwise of the realization of considerable sums which they have justifiably been relying upon for paying Death Duties or for other purposes? It is vital that we should keep every plantation in this country that we have to-day, and that, whatever the cost and whatever the difficulty we should try from now onwards to import all the timber that we require, and keep everything in the nature of decent wood in this country for future emergencies.

Now I come to the very important question of the protection of our woodlands. In the past both private owners and the Forestry Commission have suffered very great losses by fire. The Forestry Commission, particularly, not very long ago, had hundreds of acres destroyed around the banks of the river Borgie in Sutherland. When young woods, in particular, go well alight it is almost impossible to put them out. Therefore, the only thing to do is to see that they do not go alight. For myself, I have never been able to understand why, in the war, during some of the very dry summers that we had, the Germans did not drop incendiary bombs on the very young woodlands in this country. They could have practically wiped out those woodlands had they done so, for they were tinder dry.

I suggest for the consideration of the Government that once the dedication scheme comes into operation an annual levy of perhaps 1d. or 2d. per acre might be levied upon all woods dedicated, and also upon all woods in the possession of the Forestry Commission or the Ministry of Agriculture, to form a fund out of which fire damage could be made good. At the present time, it is very difficult indeed to get woods insured. It cannot be done except at premiums which are really too high to make it economically possible. We must have some form of insurance or a levy of the kind which I have indicated if we are going to avoid the possibility of these very severe losses. I will not attempt to lay down whether the levy should be universally on one scale or whether it should be graded according to the situa tion of the woodland, and also to the age of the trees, because once wood reaches a certain height and has been brashed or snedded and the stuff cleared away there is really not much danger of fire. In this country, fortunately, crown fires—that is fires which burn in the tops of the trees and go along through the tops—are of very rare occurrence, although they are extremely common, I understand, on the American continent.

Then there is the very important question—upon which the insurance problem hangs to some extent—of how is one to avoid woods going on fire. However unpopular the suggestion may be to certain quarters, I trust most strongly that your Lordships and the Government will agree that there must be control of entry to woodlands, whether State or privately owned, by unauthorized persons. Unless that is done we are bound to have most appalling losses. Everyone who knows anything about young woods knows how easily they burn. And there is really, in the case of young woods, no justification whatever for the public going in. They are extremely uncomfortable and very prickly, particularly if they are planted with Sitka spruce. The fact that certain members of the public may see fit, on occasion, to use the woods either for purposes of amorous dalliance or for purposes of a less pleasant nature is no reason why they should be permitted to do so. Unfortunately, in this country we have not got an urban population which is at all educated up to its responsibilities. Such education is vitally necessary, and, I hope, will be undertaken.

We have to remember that if out of 10,000 people 9,999 are sensible, the 10,000th one who is a fool can burn your woodlands before you have time to look round, and you have got to legislate, to some extent, for that fool. Many people living in towns have very quaint ideas regarding woodlands. On the last occasion when I spoke in your Lordships' House on this subject, I made the same suggestion as that which I have just put forward, and as a result I received a letter from a lady living in England of a somewhat abusive character. I must admit that it was in her favour that unlike the writers of most of such letters she had the courage and the decency to give both her name and her address. The burden of her missive was that it would be extremely unfair and an act of gross selfish ness on the part of landowners to prevent tired city workers having the recreation and enjoyment which they could find in the woods. She finished up with the rather surprising sentence: "Who created the woods anyhow?"

I do not think that one is guilty of any irreverence in saying that the Almighty has had no direct part in the creation of most of the woods that now exist in this country. They have almost all been planted in the past by private owners, and to an increasing degree of recent years by the Forestry Commission. I submit that it ought to be regarded as an even more heinous crime to go into a wood and commit damage by fire than to walk about on top of young wheat or growing hay. In fact, it is a very much worse thing to do because in the case of hay or wheat you are, at worst, damaging a crop of one year. In the case of young woods you are destroying a crop of anything from fifteen to thirty years. I hope that His Majesty's Government, without in any way making this more rigorous than need be, are prepared to bring in some form of legislation or regulation which will prevent the public having unauthorized access to young woods.

Finally, perhaps the noble Earl can state when this programme is going to be put into operation, to what extent and whether further legislation is going to be required. This is a very urgent matter. Now the war is over, all landowners are thinking anxiously about replanting, but it is very difficult indeed to make plans when one does not know the conditions under which one has got to work. Remember that very few people plant for themselves or can hope to reap the rewards of their planting. We plant for generations yet unborn and had our forefathers been as short-sighted as are some people to-day we should not have survived the last two wars because our timber resources, small as they actually were, would have been infinitely smaller—indeed they would have been practically non-existent. I think that I have said enough to show that we can have a really first-class major industry in this country if the timber problem is tackled satisfactorily. I hope to have from His Majesty's Government some assurances that they are alive to the importance of the problem, and propose to take, in the near future steps to set the programme for dealing with it in motion.

3.20 p.m.

LORD COURTHOPE

My Lords, I must begin with an apology for trespassing on your attention earlier than you expected and earlier than I expected. I do so at the request of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, who should have spoken ahead of me. We have listened to an extremely interesting speech and the noble Earl who made it has painted a very accurate picture in very moderate colours. Although to some extent he might have been more drastic, the force of his appeal gains by the fact that he has been so moderate and careful in the picture which he has drawn. There is a great deal of what he said with which I cordially agree, and I should very strongly endorse his appeal for the careful protection and preservation of such scanty woodlands as we have left at the end of this second war. Possibly you may know, but I must confess that I am one of the unpaid Forestry Commissioners. I am not, however, in any sense going to attempt to speak officially on behalf of the Government in the matter. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, will do that later on. I have not even seen his brief, so I hope that anything I say will not inconvenience him.

My motive in speaking to-day is that I want to say a few words as a woodland owner rather than as a Forestry Commissioner, trying to encourage every woodland owner—as most of your Lordships must be—not to be afraid of the proposed dedication. I should perhaps say that so little am I afraid of it that I have already tendered my woodland for dedication, but I do not yet know whether the fact that I am a Forestry Commissioner will prevent my acceptance of grants in the future. But I am not worried about that. There is no doubt whatever that we woodland owners can rightly claim that it was due to the efforts of our forebears and ourselves that this country has got through two great wars which could not have been successfully waged without the timber supply which has been found on the private woodland estates. It is true that the Forestry Commission have done everything they could, but they had only been in existence 20 years before this war broke out and they had not got wood of sufficient age to meet the requirements, except to a small extent in the case of pit props and to a still smaller extent in the case of matured timber from the Crown forests, the New Forest and the Forest of Dean.

The main burden is on the shoulders of the private woodland owner and I am quite certain that all of us who have contributed from our woods to the waging of these two successful wars must be very anxious that our woodland area should be handled in such a way that it will still continue to yield something to the country's need. I do not believe that any of us would be satisfied to feel that our woodlands—they may have been completely felled—should be left producing nothing for the future. The dedication scheme is, I think, a well-thought-out proposal to enable woodland owners to produce a reasonable amount from their woodland areas in the future with the help and expert advice that the Forestry Commission and their staffs can give. The Commission do not want to hinder in any way or to control in any unpleasant sense. They want to help. I am quite certain that any woodland owner who is anxious to play his part, anxious that his woodlands shall do their bit in the future as they have done in the past in the national interests, need not be afraid in the least to tender woodland for dedication. You have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, what the alternative proposals have been. I think we shall hear presently from the noble Earl who will speak on behalf of the Government that these proposals, as far as grants are concerned, will be acceptable and they will apply to the present planting season retrospectively to the beginning of last winter. That is a matter which has been a worry and an anxiety to many woodland owners who wanted to start planting as early as possible and to have both plant and labour to enable them to make a start in the present winter.

But there has been, and I think it is quite natural, a good deal of doubt and difficulty about what most of us call working plans. I suppose every one of us who manages a woodland has some idea—it may not be on paper even—or some scheme for his woodland. They may cut out their coppice over 12 or 15 years and then go in and cut their standards. They may deal with their conifer plantations when they form the opinion that they are ripe for felling or when the market appears favourable, and I personally feel no doubt that the future officers of the Forestry Commission who will have to see and approve our plans will be only too willing to approve and support any intelligible and careful scheme for the management of woodlands and help secure what we foresters call a continuous yield. So I do not think we need have any anxiety on that account. There is one point about the accounts. I have seen the proposed form of accounts and it is a form of such simplicity that no woodland owner, however small or ill equipped with estate staff, need be afraid of it. It presents no difficulty at all. There is one other point. I have no doubt that before this Debate has ended speakers will bring forward a perfectly reasonable plea that the proposed figures of grants which were suggested in the post-war forestry policy of the Forestay Commission, and which I believe have been accepted, should be increased owing to the undoubted increase in the cost of labour and such things as wire netting and so on. That is a reasonable plea. I am not going to guess whether it can be acceptable or not, but I want to say this to woodland owners. Although they may have, and I think they have, justification for the plea for periodic revision upwards of the grants, we must not forget that the crop will remain theirs. The crop, to the planting and maintenance of which these grants will be made, will remain the property of woodland owners, and I do not think it would be reasonable that we should expect the Government to give such a generous scale of grants as would cover the whole of the cost of producing a crop which, when it is mature, will be sold to the private advantage of the woodland owner.

What I do think woodland owners would be well advised and entitled to press would be this, that this Government and future Governments should do everything in their power to ensure such a price or reasonable cost of transport for pit props as will make it possible for the woodland owners to thin their plantations, which is a very necessary operation. To thin plantations without loss depends very largely on the available price of pit props. There have been a great many woodlands in the past, and there are some still standing in this country, which have been completely country, ruined and have completely lost their value through lack of the necessary thin ning at the right time, and the only reason for the lack of that necessary thinning has been that the owner has not had the money available to do the thinning when he has had no available market for the thinnings when he has extracted them. That is a very important point of assistance which I think future Governments might give to woodland owners. I hope I have not said too much in pressing that point from the woodland owners' standpoint.

The noble Earl who moved this Motion told us with complete accuracy what a tremendous financial drain upon the country was the importation of 94 per cent. of our timber before the war, how we were spending over £60,000,000 a year. I ask your Lordships to consider this. If we were spending an average of £60,000,000 odd a year on imported timber before the war, what is the cost of the corresponding quantity going to be in future years? I am inclined to think that the importation of timber on anything like that scale will be from economic considerations a matter of the greatest possible difficulty. I am not going to discuss the question of supply, or the difficulty of getting timber from Siberia and parts of Scandinavia, and so on. I am simply asking woodland owners to consider the economic position.

Although it is true they may not be able to realize any benefits in their own lifetime, their children or grandchildren will. Woodlands are likely to be an exceedingly profitable thing when they reach maturity, for the simple reason that the imported timber which alone could compete with them is bound to be at a very high cost, a cost much greater than anything we have ever known hitherto. So I think there are quite a number of reasons—personal, economic, national—why woodland owners should accept this scheme of dedication willingly and without hesitation, and I can assure them that they will find that the Forestry Commission of to-day, and no doubt those that will follow later on, are only too anxious to help and not to hinder.

3.35 p.m.

LORD BINGLEY

My Lords, I think there is such a danger of a feeling of indifference about forestry in many quarters that it is most useful that the noble Earl should raise the question again to-day, and the reply which he will get from the Government will be one of great importance. I should like also to endorse what has been said with regard to the speech of the noble Earl. I must say I thought it was an admirable, very sober and well-thought-out analysis of the position. There was certainly no question of it being too extreme in any way. I am, however, quite sure that there is a great danger that people will not realize how very important this subject is to the welfare of the country, and therefore this speedy revival of the subject will be of great value.

The war has taught us a good many things, including the paramount need for producing more food from our own country. But the war also taught us that it is very essential that we should have a home-grown timber supply in periods of difficulty. It was found there was no difficulty in producing much more food in the country than we had produced before, once we had made up our minds that reasonable prices were to be paid for it. In the same way, if we can better the position of those who are capable of producing timber, then we shall have a better chance of this work being done. But at the present moment the controlled price of timber, which was fixed in 1939, has practically not been altered at all, whereas the cost of the various operations necessary to carry woodlands on has very largely increased. I do not wish to go into the general policy in respect of the whole subject. I just want to draw attention to one or two points which do not seem to have been touched on so far.

With regard to this question of the controlled price of timber, it is well to remember that timber has been neglected in the past very largely because it was an absolutely non-paying thing. The average landowner, as has already been said, looked after his woods because he was proud of them, because he thought it was part of his duty to the estate. Some landowners saw the value of having a timber supply, but, on the whole, there was a great feeling of indifference. There was certainly no prospect of making any considerable profit, or indeed any profit at all, except perhaps on some particularly well-run estates, but there were very few in that position. If we do not make their position better, we shall have that sort of position again; we shall go back to the old neglect; we shall find ourselves in the same weak position in which we were with regard to timber at the beginning of this war. It is well to remember also, as has already been said, that practically the only ripe timber in this country at this moment, and the only ripe timber there will be in the country for a good many years yet, will be that which is on those privately owned woods. It is not a question of asking for help to landowners or anything of that sort. You are being asked to preserve the one supply you have got, and the only supply you will have for a very considerable time to come.

The increase in cost has been very remarkable; like everything else, of course, as we know, prices have been going up, and it is not a thing to be surprised at. I have been reckoning up what the cost would be of replanting at the present time, and it is somewhere about £30 an acre, whereas before the war it was somewhere below £20. I am only speaking from my own experience. In 1908 we could do it for about £11 an acre. That indicates a very considerable increase in cost, and no owner who has private woods is going to be able to incur that on a large scale, unless good conditions are made available for him in the way of Government grants or assistance. I hope we shall hear to-day that the Government are going to implement and reinforce the reply, satisfactory on the whole, which we got when a Motion was before this House some time ago. But, then, of course, there was another Government. Since then a good deal has happened. A good many changes have taken place. And there have been certainly already several instances in which the present Government have not shown themselves quite willing to implement promises which have been made by a previous Government. That may be natural, it may be politic, but I hope in this case there is no question of controversial Party politics and that everybody is aiming at the same thing. I hope the Government will be able to give us some encouragement as they did on a previous occasion.

In addition to the figure about the general cost of replanting, I should like to point out that wages have risen 100 per cent, since 1939 and that wire has risen very considerably in price, and you cannot plant without wire, at any rate in most parts of the country. That does involve a very great increase in the general cost of replanting, and not only of replanting but also of maintenance. It is absolutely essential that we should be able to maintain on a proper scale the young woods that are growing up in the private woodlands, which will soon be ripe timber but which, if neglected now, will certainly not be of much value to the country when the time comes. If we are to have really good timber we must have maintenance carried on properly, and rabbits kept out; we must have drainage, and the general supervision must be well and carefully done. That is all going to involve a great deal of money. Unless the controlled price of timber is altered or a fair system of Government grants, representing a considerable proportion of the cost of maintenance and replanting, is given us, I am afraid you will find we shall soon lapse back into the old system of neglect ending in Carey Street.

I do not want to detain the House long, because many others wish to speak. I do again wish, to press for an announcement that the Government intend to implement the statement made not so long ago and that they will particularly tell us whether any planting grant which they can either promise or at any rate agree to consider will be retrospective. If they will do that, it will do much to make those who have the opportunity start replanting now, quickly—and every year counts very considerably. If they will only announce it now or as soon as possible, we shall at any rate know how to begin and what the prospects are.

It is encouraging to hear from Lord Courthope—and of course he knows all about it—that the system of accounts which has been frightening some large owners is not going to be so difficult as was expected. We are so afraid of what Government forms may lead to, and it was rather alarming to see that a system of accounts was to be asked for—alarming until we have an opportunity of Bring what that system is going to be. I hope the Government will be able to tell us not only that but whether they accept the idea of the dedication scheme, and what the conditions will be under which they will be able to accept it. If all these things are done to-day, then I think the Motion of the noble Earl will have been very greatly justified and we shall have cause for very great satisfaction at what has been done.

3.44 p.m.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I should like very briefly to join in the congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, on the speech which he has delivered to-day. It was remarkably thorough and dealt with every aspect of the question, and was a great contribution to the consideration of a most vital and important problem. I should like to add my voice to his plea for a definite statement of policy now from the Government. There are a great number of ideas in the air which seem to be on the whole satisfactory, and we have had certain declarations from the Minister; but, of course, there is a big difference between a declaration in a speech and an actual statement of definite policy. I hope that policy will deal with every aspect of the problem, going right through from planting to the marketing and sale of the final product. I think we all have learnt from our experience of agriculture in the past that it is not sufficient just to have a production policy; we have also to have a marketing and sales policy. That applies particularly to a commodity such as timber which has to be dealt with in terms of many, many years.

Noble Lords who have already spoken have stressed the fact that this country has now reached rock bottom in terms of its available timber supply, and the fact that we cannot correct that deficiency in a small number of years is not an argument for further delay but is an argument for getting going immediately with our new developments. I have seen it argued most forcefully lately that the development of our timber resources in this country can never be economic. I think to-day we are all of us finding it extremely difficult to arrive at any definition of the word "economic." The fact is that the timber supplies of this country, as of every country in the world, are an essential basis of security and an essential part of the development of the national estate.

We have all beer very glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, his recommendation of the scheme for dedication. I do not think there is anybody in the country from whom those who are experienced in forestry and landowning would be more prepared to accept advice on a subject such as that, than from the noble Lord, Lord Court-hope. It is a most appropriate system of partnership in a matter that is essentially a question of long-term development in highly uncertain days, and I think the landlord must welcome a scheme of that character. The fact that it is to be a scheme of partnership with those who have been running the Forestry Commission must, I believe, inspire us with special confidence, because it is certain that the Forestry Commission—largely through the services of gentlemen of the character of the noble Lord, Lord Courthope—has won the confidence of everyone concerned with forestry.

Now it is quite true, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said, that there are vast areas of this country not only suitable for afforestation but possibly suitable for very little but afforestation. There is only one note in the noble Earl's speech, if he will forgive my saying so, with which I did not quite agree, and that was where he discussed forestry and hill sheep farming almost as though they were to be considered as rivals. I had the honour to be chairman of a hill sheep farming commission two or three years ago, and I travelled round the whole of the areas of England and Wales devoted to hill sheep farming. What struck me the whole time was that it is essential, if we are going to have the development of the hill lands of this country—and, after all, to a large extent we are discussing the development of hill lands at the present moment, when we discuss forestry—we should think in terms of forestry and hill sheep farming being partners and not enemies. He gave some figures of extremely low sheep population in certain of the hills. I am not at all sure that all those hills with such a very low sheep population—some of which I think he said were not really capable of carrying sheep at all—would necessarily be very readily acceptable to the Forestry Commission.

As a matter of fact, the one complaint that I heard in going round the hills during my travels was that the worst lands were so often left by the Forestry Commission. The actual phrase which I almost became tired of hearing in discussions with the farmers was that the Forestry Commission tended too often, as they called it, to "take the eyes out of a farm," that is to say, to take the lower lands from the farm, leaving the higher lands, the hill tops and the mountain tops, which could not be developed at all or used at all except in conjunction with the lower lands. In spite of those complaints, I remain convinced that if afforestation is done in conjunction with the agricultural authorities, and if the hill lands are looked at in exactly the same way as the ordinary landowner looks at his estate—not in terms of hostility between his plantations and his farm lands but in terms of using the portions of his land for afforestation which are most suited to it and other portions of his land for farming which are most suited for farming—then there will be no conflict.

There are a great number of common needs. In this most excellent report on post-war forest policy by the Forestry Commission I find they say there is immediate work waiting to be done in the form of making over 2,000 miles of roads. With a little forethought and planning ahead, it can be ensured that those roads are of use in opening up the hills for the hill sheep farmers as well as for forestry. There are housing settlements which have got to be made in the hills, every type of service has got to be put up there, and if from the beginning the scheme is planned with regard to the interests of both I believe the nation as a whole will get a great deal out of what has got to be a very large-scale effort and large-scale expenditure. That is why I, for my part, welcome very much the transfer of the work of the Forestry Commission to the two Ministers, the Minister of Agriculture for England and Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Personally, I was sorry it did not go to the Ministry instead of to the Minister, because I think forestry may suffer as a result.

At the present moment the agricultural departments have, by force of their terms of reference, to look only at agriculture; when a forestry question goes to the Ministry of Agriculture the officials in the Ministry have to take the view of the agriculturist only. That is their job; they are shut out of consideration of matters of forestry. If the work had been put under the Ministry of Agriculture, then it would have been for the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry, as the chief civil servant, to have made himself the guardian angel of both interests and to have assumed a judicial position. However, that is only a minor point. I would like to stress the fact that I think the bringing together of agriculture and forestry, even to the extent which has been done, is a very great advance. I will close by expressing the earnest hope that we are going to have a statement, and a very definite statement, if not today, at least in the very near future on this most important subject.

3.56 p.m.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSFERRY

My Lords, I would like to support what the noble Earl Lord Mansfield has said to-day, and also what the noble Lord Lord Courthope said in his encouragement to all owners of woodlands to come into dedication schemes. I do hope that no owners of woodlands will be alarmed or put off in any way by the terms of the scheme. Although there are a great many difficulties to be overcome at this stage, I do feel that they can be overcome and that prospects will be better in the course of time. In discussing the advancement of forestry and the growing of timber a tremendous number of details have to be considered. I should like to draw the attention of the Government to a few points which have not been mentioned so far and to ask a few questions. I wonder if the Government realize the extent to which forestry is being held up and is almost being brought to a standstill in a number of places just now by the shortage of houses, especially in those places where they are most wanted, particularly in Scotland. I know that the Forestry Commission as well as private forestry are suffering anxiety.

The Forestry Commission may have some advantage in getting houses, and I certainly hope they have, but I do hope also that the Government will pay very special attention to this matter. Although it may be to some extent a housing problem, it is in this case primarily a matter for those responsible for forestry. I know that the Government have recently announced a number of proposals for rural housing but I think someone on their behalf should examine them very carefully indeed to ascertain whether they will succeed this year, next year, or even some time in the future in providing houses in those rather isolated places, near enough to the woodlands, where those employed in them can be housed. I wonder if the Government realize the urgency of an extension of the advisory services and sources of information for private forestry? The present advisory services are limited even on paper, and even more so in practice, in contrast to the very comprehensive services which exist for agriculture. I do not consider that the Forestry Commission should be blamed for this; I think we all realize that their staff difficulties at the present time are very acute. It is a very great misfortune, not only to the Forestry Commission and to State Forestry but also to private forestry, that they have been obliged to spare so many of their good men for work overseas in getting timber from Germany. We all hope very much that they will at the earliest possible date be assured of an adequate staff greatly to enlarge and improve the quality of these advisory services.

Many areas at the present time, due for replanting and which have been felled by the Government, are not yet cleared of lop and top. In many cases, this is not the fault of the owners. The timber was demanded and no labour was available at the time for clearing the lop and top. The result is that there are masses of brambles, weeds and growths of all kinds, and clearance is very much more difficult. Do the Government intend owners to be burdened with the additional cost of clearing which may amount to £5, £10, or even considerably higher sums, and that these costs should be added to the normal costs of planting and re-establishing young woodlands? In that connexion, I would like to remind the Minister of a unanimous recommendation by the chairman of the Home-Grown Timber Production Department and his consultative committees in England and Scotland in February, 1944, and since, that costs up to so much per acre should be borne by the owner, and that the rest of the work should be undertaken in conjunction with that Department. So far, there has been no answer to that recommendation, and I would ask whether it has been discussed at a high level, either by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry.

A reference has been made to financial assistance. We understand that grants which, up till now, have only been £2 per acre, are now increased to £7 10s. per acre. It might be mentioned that in Eire similar grants are £20 per acre. I would like to mention to noble Lords that the total expenditure towards private forestry since grants were instituted in 1939, in respect of the three million acres of private woodlands, works out for 26 years at about id. per acre per annum. In return, not only has the State had the advantage of timber, but a very large revenue in taxation of many millions of pounds, equivalent to at least 45 or 50 times the amount of the total grants. It is therefore clear that the nation has done well out of the expenditure of individual owners, both financially and in other ways. I can assure the Government that if they assist planting and reafforestation with a grant, it will prove a very good investment for the nation, and that it will prove a very much better one if they suceed in getting woodlands actively replanted.

There is one other subject, which has only been lightly touched upon to-day, to which I would like to refer. It is the private management of soft-wood plantations. This is closely bound up with regular thinnings and with the supply of pit props which have been mentioned, and the prices allowed for them. Thinning and pruning have been delayed by six years of war and labour shortage. They are overdue and urgently needed, both for future growth and for maintaining the quality of the young plantations which still remain. It is understood that there is a very acute shortage of pit props at the present time, and that the maximum output is needed during the next six months. If this is so, I think it ought to be made known as widely as possible and the co-operation of growers of timber invited. These two matters go together, but, so far, I do not think anything has been said publicly.

The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has rightly stated that it is believed in both countries that sufficient fellings have taken place. I consider that by judicious thinnings we shall be able in Scotland to make a very good contribution now to the shortage of pit props provided labour is organized for the purpose and transport is made available. By the co-operation of timber merchants, growers and the Home Timber Production Department, a very good contribution could be made. There is no reason why there should be any more clear fellings of young plantations. By a comparatively simple adjustment and the distribution of German prisoners of war, a very large output of pit props could be obtained now, and a very considerable improvement in the remaining soft wood could also be obtained.

This brings me to the prices for pit props and the economic side of the matter which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Courthope. I would like to ask the Government whether they are aware that the maximum controlled prices fixed in 1939, which the growers agreed to for the duration of the war, still hold good, that wages and costs are very much higher and that, in most cases, growers now find that they cannot produce pit props and do their thinnings at a profit? Do the Government realize that they are paying many times higher prices to foreign growers for pit props? Three times higher, it is believed. If the Government demand thinnings and pit props, is it not right and fair that they should pay at least as much as the cost of production? Do they realize that, in many cases, the controlled prices are still considerably less than owners could secure in the open market before the war—in many cases 65 or 70 per cent. below? Moreover, do the Government realize that they deduct about 15 per cent. from these controlled prices when they do the work in private woodlands with their own labour?

This question of prices does not only affect pit props; it affects all standing timber. There are many other cases where the maximum prices to-day are nearly 65 to 70 per cent. below what were obtainable pre-war. In some quarters it is believed that very big prices are being obtained by growers of timber. It is only fair to give an instance known to me of a woodland for which, before the war, the sum of £30,000 was offered in the open market. Three years later, the price offered by the Government for that woodland was £12,000, and was subsequently increased to just under £16,000. I refer to these matters because of the effect they must have on replanting and re-establishment.

If the Government do not find it convenient or wise in their opinion to decontrol prices now and let them reach their natural level, or fix them at a higher level, then I urge that they, or someone on their behalf, should examine very closely the whole economic requirements of the forestry industry, and consider how best, whether by more generous planting grants, by maintenance grants, or by loan—as was suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield—the industry can go ahead on an economic basis. I would ask, in that respect, if they consider that there should be some relationship between prices and costs and wages as in the case of agriculture. I would like to refer the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, to the visit of the Prime Minister, when he was accompanied by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, to the National Farmers' Union on January 22 this year. On that occasion the Prime Minister gave a very definite assurance to the agricultural community in regard to security and stability, and also in regard to prices. He indicated that they could make their plans for the future with greater confidence. May I suggest that every word the Prime Minister used on that occasion might be applied with equal appropriateness to forestry, and may I urge that, perhaps, his attention may be drawn to that? It will give great encouragement to forestry, if the nation can feel that there are Ministers, from the Prime Minister downwards, who will take a personal interest in the problems of forestry aft the present time.

I am sure that everyone here welcomes very much the personal interest which the Lord Chancellor takes in forestry and is glad to know how great is the knowledge which he has acquired of it. We hope, also, that other Ministers will be able to find time to devote to the same study. Unfortunately, in Scotland, our Secretary of State has been ill for many months, but now that he has, happily, recovered we look forward very much to the manifestation also of his personal interest—of which, I may say, we are assured—in forestry.

4.13 p.m.

LORD QUIBELL

My Lords, may I first of all congratulate the noble Earl who opened this debate on delivering what I think is one of the most interesting and informative speeches which I have yet heard on the subject of forestry. I think that all your Lordships were delighted with his contribution. Forestry, as noble Lords who have already spoken have said, is a most interesting subject, and I, like the previous speaker, am very pleased that the Lord Chancellor himself has taken an interest in it. But I am still more pleased that the Chancellor of Exchequer has taken an interest in it. What has prevented us from getting along in the last two or three years has been the feeling of uncertainty as to what policy was likely to be pursued with regard to the future of forestry in this country. Happily, a statement has been made that has given considerable relief, I am sure, to the directors of forestry and to all the noble Lords in this House who are interested in forestry. It has been announced that £20,000,000 is to be set aside for the first five years—which period ends in 1950—for the purpose of implementing the Report of the Forestry Commission. I think that is very gratifying to those of us who are associated with forestry and who have worked so hard and so long in order to get the necessary approval to allow us to proceed with this work.

I do think, however,—and I speak as one of those who, in support of the efforts of the Forestry Commission, have encouraged private landowners to plant land with trees and to go ahead as speedily as they can—that some assurance should be given that if people are prepared to take the risks involved and collect the labour and plant some of the land, whatever grants are given may be retrospective. I am speaking of people who have shown great courage in tackling this vital problem. This is a point which has been raised by several landowners living in my own home district. They are men who have set about the job with energy, and they have received such encouragement from me as I have been able to give them. I think that such men should not suffer as the result of their having had the courage and foresight to set about this great task of replanting. Therefore, I strongly urge that in case of such men compensation on a restrospective basis should be given.

One subject has been touched upon already in the debate to-day which, although I did not expect the noble Duke to deal with it, I yet recognize as a subject which must naturally interest any Scotsman—I refer to the money side of the matter, the grants for forestry. For a long time we have had two great forestry organizations, one in Scotland and one in England. The one in England is quite a modest affair, but the one in Scotland, I understand, is not quite so modest. Nevertheless, it has bee too modest to put forward a suggestion as to what ought to be the appropriate grant the per acre.

The difficulty has been demonstrated here to-day, for it has been pointed out that prices have varied from £10 to £31 per acre. No one was able to put up a concrete case and give specific figures as to the cost of planting. I think that considering the fact that grants had previously been £2 a an acre—£4 in some cases for hard woods—the all round figure of £7 10s. 0d. was a very good compromise.

And may I say that I think everyone who has spoken previously has missed a point which I regard as most important. It is of importance both with regard to the Commission and perhaps also from the point of view of this House. The Commission, as no doubt your Lordships are aware, do grow a lot of plants. How many million I do not quite know, but I believe that at the present time they have something like 300,000,000 ready for planting out in the forests. Now from time to time landlords have made complaints—one has reached me quite recently—of the terrible price which they are being charged by nurserymen in this country for their plants. This is a matter which is capable of proof. In some cases, the landowners have been charged as many pounds for plants as the Commission have charged shillings. What we have tried to do is not to compete with the nursery trade. We have refrained from selling the plants direct to the landlords. This has helped to prop up private enterprise in the nursery trade and to keep that trade upon its feet. I think that in return the trade should behave decently and should not have taken as much out of the sale of these plants as, in many cases, they have done. In a considerable number of instances there have been exorbitant prices charged for plants, and I think that the landlords concerned have a justifiable complaint in this matter. We ought to say plainly to the nursery trade: "You must only charge an overriding percentage on the cost of the plants that come from the Forestry Commission to you. We are not going to allow you to take the benefit of the additional planting grant that we give to the landlord to encourage him to plant the trees. You are not to charge him extra on that account and put into your pocket."

For my own part I would rather see what plants we have to spare supplied on a fair percentage basis to those who require them than have them burnt or allow the nursery trade to profiteer with them at the expense of the landlords to whom we are giving a grant. I thought that some of the noble Lords who have already spoken would have made some reference to this matter.

Now on the question of this planting grant there are one or two important points that have to be taken into consideration. First of all, the Forestry Commission and the Government are in the position of having to justify whatever grant they give for the planting of forests. And remember, as set out in this document, of which we have been speaking—it took a long time to prepare—that the buying of the land was at the rate of less than £3 an acre. It takes us all our time to justify a grant of £7 10s. an acre for planting. There is a limit. After all, the Commission are to an extent guardians of the public purse and the public interest.

I think we went to the limit of giving these grants and I hope if anything at all is done about it that I may draw the attention of those who are interested in the matter to getting either replanting or transplanting. My object is precisely that of the noble Lords who have spoken, namely, that of getting our woodlands planted and those felled in the last war replanted. One question was asked as to how far this would go back. On much of the land the stumps of the trees are there but the woodlands felled during the last war have not been touched until now. The point is how far we can go back and say that a particular piece of land which was woodland is either to be dedicated or it will be taken by the ordinary process of law. It will be said: "If it is not dedicated, we shall step in and use it for another purpose. It has not contributed anything since the last war, merely producing rabbits and a bit of game and in present circumstances we cannot afford it."

So far as the powers are concerned it is understood that they are sufficient in order to compel landlords to replant that woodland, and so far as the Ministry is concerned they can step in and take it over and replant it when it is prepared for it. So far as the aim is concerned, I should like to say this. The criticism is often raised that we do not grow enough hard wood. It is said that we do not grow enough oaks and hard woods and that we grow nothing but conifers. There is a very simple answer to that. At one time we used to fight with ships of British oak. We fight now in a war with ships of British steel so that the consumption of British hard woods is only 5 per cent. as against 90 per cent. of conifers; and being commercially minded, as I suppose the Forestry Commission are, they decided that the kind of timber we ought to grow in this country in view of the straitened circumstances in which we found ourselves in regard to timber, should be that which was most likely to be needed and which would make the quickest contribution to the economic recovery of this country and our woodlands.

I do not think that the advice that I shall offer will fall on deaf ears but a big problem confronts us. I should like to see bigger units in some of the districts, units which would justify the erection of a complete self-contained village in which the amenities can be brought to the people instead of the people having to go to them. The kind of amenities I am thinking about are those at Keilder with its 90,000 acres. We could plant, brash and thin and develop that 90,000 acres and then go on to pulping and processing and the rest of it. That is a little bit of what people would call Socialism, but in my opinion it is common sense. That is the kind of unit in which we ought to develop a complete village with every one of the amenities necessary. That is what we ought to aim at, and I hope so far as the future is concerned that the Forestry Commission and the Ministry will aim at establishing these villages in the way I have indicated.

It is true that thousands of houses are required. Here again we may be up against a problem lying between the interests of agriculture and those of forestry. In this matter I believe we are bound to have the tied cottage for forestry. In other words, if forestry is to be a success it has to provide the houses for its workers and I see no escape from that principle being operated. I have been to Scotland to try to select suitable sites with water, electricity and a road to take the children to school, and I know that the siting of the villages is important. But if you say you are going to allow rural district councils to build houses, I would remind you that it only requires the resolution of a council that when a forest worker's house becomes empty it can be anyone's house. My view is that the policy should be to build houses for forestry workers sited in suitable places and taking the amenities to them or taking them to the amenities. For my part, although I know that my view will conflict with that of the Ministry of Agriculture, I believe that in the more remote parts there is no other solution than tying cottages to the job. It is nothing new. I have even heard miners complain of tied cottages for the agricultural labourer, but I venture to suggest that there are more tied cottages round Doncaster than there are in the whole of my county and the whole of Yorkshire put together. That is just in one little area and yet we get complaints about an agricultural labourer's cottage or maybe a forestry labourer's cottage being tied to his job.

There are others who want to speak and I want to say how pleased I am at to-day's debate, which has been on a very high level. It must be a great encouragement to the Ministry of Agriculture who, I hope, when dealing with the question of forestry, will forget that they are the Ministry of Agriculture. This new set-up is nothing to do with me. I have had nothing to do with it. I wanted forestry to continue because I thought it was doing a good job of work. I hope they will see that forestry does not always come second and that so far as its interests are concerned it will at any rate be marching in step with British agriculture. There is just one final point I should like to make and that is about the complaints of farmers. Farmers always have a complaint or the gout or something; there is always something wrong with the farmers. Some of them complain that you do not buy the land right at the top. There is a good reason for that. The reason is that it will not grow trees and if the Forestry Commission were fools enough to buy it, the first to criticize them would probably be someone at either end of this building, possibly here first. But in any case they would have come in for very strong criticism because of their lack of knowledge that you could not grow trees on that type of land.

Fortunately we had a director who was very wide awake who advised the Commission with regard to those matters, and when there was occasion to enquire into the substance of complaints I frequently agreed with the director and the officials. So far as that kind of land is concerned, it is of no use to the Forestry Commission. Some of the land that is of use to the Forestry Commission has been difficult to get. People have criticized us and have said, "You are not using your compulsory powers." I was reading a certain publication emanating from another part of this building, which, in effect, said that the Forestry Commission should have the courage to apply their compulsory powers to purchase land. I am happy to say that, so far as our negotiations in the past have been concerned with landlords, we have had the happiest relations. We have been able to purchase the land without applying compulsory powers. I think it is a very great compliment to the reasonable attitude of those people who could not afford to plant the land, that they were willing enough to sell it at a reasonable price so that the State could undertake the operations and the financial obligations which, because of lack of means, they could not discharge. I again thank the noble Earl for giving us an opportunity of debating this very important subject.

4.35 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

My Lords, your Lordships have just heard a most interesting and refreshing speech from the noble Lord opposite, and, in following him, I am afraid I shall be very dull, but I do welcome what has been said in urging that forestry workers should be properly and conveniently housed according to their work. Having been responsible for the planting of 1,000,000 trees during 25 years of participation in the family estate, I am extremely interested, of course, in the noble Earl's Motion, and I think we all ought to be very much indebted to him for having brought forward this important subject. May I say in passing that the great majority of those million trees which I have been privileged to plant have come out of my own nursery, and, let me add, there is no grant for a nursery; there never has been one. Whether there is going to be one or not, I do not know. Of course, you cannot run a nursery for nothing. But to run a nursery is a very great asset to the forestry in the district.

There is a great deal I could say, but time prevents my doing so, because I have got to travel to Scotland to-night. I would like, however, to express the view that the Forestry Commission have made one mistake, in my opinion, and that is that they have been far too fond of planting soft wood as against hard wood. When you consider that the Forestry Commission do not pay any taxation or Death Duties whereas the private owner does, and when you consider that hard wood takes much longer to grow, I say that it might be left to the private owner to cultivate soft wood and not place him in competition with the Forestry Commission or whoever is going to succeed them.

There is another point which has not been mentioned, but which is a very interesting one, and that is, that in January, 1945, a judgment was given whereby private owners now do not have to pay double taxation on their timber results. It always has been, I believe, a maxim that you do not pay twice over on the same income, but, curiously enough, you could be assessed under Schedule B on your growing timber and for the same timber that you cut you could also be assessed under Schedule D. Now, by that judgment, it is no longer legal to charge forest owners double taxation.

A question which has not been mentioned at all this afternoon—although the noble Earl did mention the question of fire—is the question of storm. In my particular case I remember two successive years, namely 1895 and 1896, when the storm came from the one direction in the first year and from the other direction in the next year, with the result that 150,000 trees were blown down. The value after being logged and carted to the mill was 10d. Well, obviously that was not a paying proposition. A fact which we must bear in mind is that the grower of timber has a great many enemies, and that, of course, is one of the chief enemies. On the other hand, it has been my privilege practically to plant up the whole of that land which was thus devastated, although I had a similar experience on a small scale four years ago.

The important thing is that forestry should be encouraged, and all will be well. During this last war I lost 200 acres of timber, and the sad feature about it was that only about 35 acres of them were mature timber, the rest was immature. I agree, of course, in wartime we do all sorts of things which we would not do in ordinary times, but, at the same time, I do think, that, if timber is required, the Home-Grown Timber Production Department, or, rather, the Ministry of Supply, should go for mature timber rather than immature, and have an eye on the future, because all wars leave their legacies, and one of the biggest legacies of the past war is the enormous amount of timber required for housing alone. Therefore I do think it is hard, when you do all you can to meet the occasion, to see immature timber taken. The first consignment of timber that was taken from me was seasoning timber for housing purposes, but it was commandeered for the construction of camps within 30 or 40 miles from where the timber was. Three months later these camps were removed, and the great majority of the timber was pulled down and, I am sorry to say, burned. That was a result of officialdom during the war. I am definitely sure that if that I timber had been carefully taken care of, it could have been used for the construction of camps elsewhere. But no! So one does view with considerable apprehension the action of a Government Department when you have experiences like that. What I really wanted to say is that I welcome this opportunity which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has given us this afternoon, of hearing some very interesting speeches.

I just thought I would like, as a very keen forestry owner—or rather as a late forestry owner, because now the land has gone over to my nephew, who is going to adopt the policy advocated by the reports, as I think every wise owner ought to do—to put in my word of commendation for an active forestry policy which is in the best interests of our country and the best interests of all who are concerned in rural life. For it is true that planting does help irrigation as well: there, forestry is the handmaid of agriculture. I do not say that they always go together, and that is the only thing that makes me a little nervous about the matter being handed over to the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland in his position as Agricultural Minister for Scotland. The two do not go together always, but if there can be a forestry section of each Ministry, which is not going to interfere with but is going to have its regular liaisons for all matters connected with forestry, I would not mind so much. It, however, the subject is going to be managed by agriculturists, then I have my fears for the future.

In any case, we do want to realize the enormous value of timber to this country. We cannot grow sufficient for ourselves. There is going to be a world shortage of timber before very long, and goodness knows what we are going to do if we do not encourage, to the very utmost, everybody who is willing to put in his bit for producing trees.

4.42 p.m.

LORD BROCKET

My Lords, I feel we all ought to be grateful to the noble Earl for raising this subject this afternoon, and I think it has afforded an opportunity for your Lordships' House to show how to ascend over ordinary Party politics and talk, as the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, said, common sense. The questions of forestry and the denudation of the forests of this country are both so very serious that this subject should be lifted right outside Party politics, and it is in a chamber of this kind where a debate can be so very useful and helpful.

May I take a point which the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, raised before I get on to my other points? It is one which he says is his form of Socialism but it is common sense; and that is the matter of housing. I already had it in my notes before he raised it. Labour is the most essential need for the present day, and you cannot get labour unless you have houses in which to put your forest workers. Arising out of that, Lord Quibell mentioned—and I will quote his words—that you are bound to have the tied cottage with forestry. I know the tied cottage is a subject of political contention, but where you have men working in out-of-the-way places, such as forest workers or agricultural workers on out-of-the-way farms, I feel you must have the tied cottage going with the jobs, and I would ask if the Government could not reconsider the grants which were announced the other day, in regard to which I see that ordinary agricultural landowners can get certain grants for the building of cottages but only if those cottages are to be owner-occupied or are to be let. Well, the ordinary agricultural landowner is not very likely to live in them himself, and if he lets them to outsiders, people not working in agriculture or forestry, it will be quite impossible, when one man leaves, to have a cottage in which the new man can live. I would ask the Government very seriously to consider, from what Lord Quibell calls the common-sense point of view, the question of these grants, and whether they will allow them to be used for cottages connected either with agriculture or with forestry.

Now I want to take the subject in rather a wider way. We have heard this afternoon that well over 90 per cent. of the timber felled in this war came from private woodlands. I am not going to stand up and try to take credit for that on behalf of private landowners, because the Forestry Commission came into existence only after the last war, and most of their timber is therefore too immature to provide the large percentage. There is one point arising out of that, however, and it is that I hope private landowners in future will be treated equally as well as the Forestry Commission in the matter of thinning, and that they will not have their immature conifer plantations ordered to be clear felled whereas so many of the Forestry Commission's plantations of an equal age are thinned. I think that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander; and although plantations already felled cannot be put back again, I do hope private landowners will be encouraged to thin in order to obtain the big supplies of pit props which are so necessary, rather than for their plantations to be clear felled when they are immature.

Now we must talk about the future and not the past. The question of planting and the whole subject of forestry in this country is a question of, to use the war-time expression, a combined operation. It is a combined operation between the Forestry Commission and private landowners. But whereas the Forestry Commission knows that it has absolute security of tenure in the future of the land on which it plants trees, private landowners do not know that they have a similar security of tenure. I am not trying to get to Party politics at all, but at the last Election it was stated that land would not be nationalized during this Parliament. It may well be that land, or some of it, may be nationalized after this Parliament but I do think that any industry or any body of men who are asked to do their best, to put their own money, their own brains and their own organization into that industry or into their estates, should have some reassurance as to what their future is going to be. It is not in any way selfish, but you cannot expect an industry or a group of owners of land to go forward with the same wholehearted; energy if they think there is a possibility of their land being taken away in the course of a few years.

Uncertainty, if I may say so—it was also mentioned by Lord Quibell—is quite fatal in forestry or in any industry, and I think it is most necessary that the Government should make some allowance regarding the future of land which is properly looked after and woodlands which are properly planted. Arising out of that, I feel that this security can be given if land which is dedicated to forestry and also dedicated to agriculture—in other words, the bona tide agricultural estate—could be freed from Death Duties until it was sold by the family who owned it. I am sorry to labour the point, but this security is absolutely essential in the interests of forestry. Agriculture itself requires a long-term policy, but forestry requires a much longer-term policy. I own some land on which the Forestry Commission plant trees. They have a lease from me for 200 years, and they know quite well that for 200 years—probably at the end of that time they will continue or get the land in some other way—they are absolutely safe and can right ahead. If private landowners, are expected to play their part—and I know they are willing to do so—they must have security to justify them in their expenditure of money and energy.

The forestry industry—and this applies to the Commission as well as to private landowners—must be put on an economic basis. I did not entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Quibell—this was the only point on which I did not agree with him—that the £7 10s. per acre planting grant was sufficient. When that grant was fixed or suggested in 1943 expenses were not as high as they are now. I think there is a case to be made for the increase of that grant, or there might even be a case to be made for the reconsideration of the grant in five years from 1943, namely, 1948, or two years from now. Another point is the maintenance grant forwoodland of 2s. 6d. per acre. That 2s. 6d. per acre at the present wage rate would pay one man for roughly one and a half hours on that acre in the course of the 365 days of the year. I do not wish to use any unkind words about that suggestion, but, quite frankly, I feel that 2s. 6d. per acre is an absurd amount to offer a landowner, and that it should be reconsidered.

The prices of timber are still based on 1939 prices. It was agreed early in the war that those prices should not be varied during the war, but the war is now over and I would press for those prices to be reconsidered. I feel that the whole economic position of the forestry industry must be reconsidered and that the industry must be put on a sound economic basis, not only for the private landowner, but also for the Forestry Commission. Arising out of that, I think the prices of pit props will have a good deal to do with providing revenue to thin the woods and to carry out all the other operations which are so necessary during the next few years. So much mature timber has been felled that for the next few years the Forestry Commission and the private landowners will have to depend very much on the sale of pit props.

I do not want to continue too long or to stand between you and the noble Earl who is to reply on behalf of the Government, but there are two or three more points which I feel I should mention. The noble Lord, Lord Courthope, raised the question, on which other noble Lords spoke, of dedication. I would like to ask whether we can have further details of the dedication, and whether we can know if further legislation is required for carrying through the scheme of dedication or whether no further legislation is required. Going back for a moment to the planting grant, could we know whether this grant of £7 10s., or whatever it may be, attracts tax at 10s. in the pound or not? That makes a very considerable difference; it may reduce it to £3 15s. an acre. I would like an authoritative statement on behalf of the Government on that. It may not be possible for the noble Earl to give that statement, but I do feel that an announcement should be made as to whether this grant does attract tax or not. We are very grateful that the grant will be given for the 1945–46 planting season, but I am sure those who apply for it would like to know whether they are going to get £7 10s. or £3 15s.

There is another service which forest officers can give which will be of very great help to the private landowner; that is the service of advice. A great many landowners could do with advice on their planting, but I do feel that the advice which they get should not necessarily be advice from the kind of forest officers who are particularly interested in the Forestry Commission form of plantation. It is a fact that a great many of the private landowners' woods are small woods. I think what is wanted is a number of forest officers who are "private woodland owner minded "and who are not Forestry Commission minded. We have all the little woods to replant which the Forestry Commission do not want, and I think they are quite right in not wanting to have these little woods, because they are not half so economic as the big woods. However, as the Forestry Commission leaves all these little woods of the private landowner, which require different technique and which cost so much more in wire netting, fencing and so forth, I do think that the advice given to private landowners should be advice based on a rather different angle to the ordinary Forestry Commission way of looking at things. I therefore hope there will be set up a separate organization to deal with advice to private landowners.

I would like to back up the plea of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, for a levy for fire insurance. I do not know whether the noble Marquess of Aberdeen would go so far as to have a levy against tempest; that might be rather difficult, but I think there should be a levy against fire, and also, whether it is popular or not, the shutting out of the public from certain small plantations. On my own property in Hampshire in 1937 on the land let to the Forestry Commission 300 acres were burnt one afternoon through the action of a picnic party who tried to boil a kettle and succeeded in setting the whole 300 acres alight. It was only by getting several hundred soldiers from Aldershot that thousands of the Forestry Commission acres and a good many of my own acres were saved from a similar fate. I think that is a question which is most important.

I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer except to say how much I personally welcome a debate of this kind in your Lordships' House. I do hope that this question will be treated on an economic basis, apart altogether from Party politics, and that both for the Forestry Commission, which already has security, and for the private landowner, who must have security if he is to carry out his duty, a really long-term policy will be provided.

4.59 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MIINISTRY OF GRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON)

My Lords, I should like to say first how much we are all indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, for his speech and for raising this question. I must say that in the debates which I have had the privilege to attend in your Lordships' House I have seldom found one in which I could agree so wholeheartedly with nearly all the speakers. In fact everybody seemed to be supporting pleas with which one cannot but help feeling the greatest sympathy.

I think it might be of value, if you will bear with me for a few moments, if I review the general position and the course of events which led up to the position in which we find ourselves to-day. At the beginning of this century Britain was a very large timber importing country. She got her soft woods from the Northern Hemisphere and as a result of the steady growth in industry timber became more and more in demand. In fact at the outbreak of the 1914–18 war Britain was the largest world importer of timber, almost completely dependent on overseas supplies. Unfortunately, as we all know, this led to a neglect of home forestry. One must admit that the State did practically nothing to remedy that situation. I should like here to pay a tribute. Had it not been for the private owners who did grow their woods and who did have the foresight to do large-scale planting we should have been indeed in a terrible position in that war of 1914–18.

When the war came, the submarine cut us off from our supplies and we awoke at last to the danger of depending entirely on this import of timber. As a result, we find that in 1919 the Forestry Commission was set up. I should here like—I am afraid I shall have to disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield—to pay a tremendous tribute to the Forestry Commission, and to say that if there were any shortcomings in their work they were due to lack of support in the time between the wars and not to the personnel of that very fine body. Unfortunately, the economy campaign which started after the last war cut down and drew away support, moral and financial, from the Commission. That, I think, was a great tragedy to our country. In any case, possibly, the interval between the wars would not have been long enough to supply us with timber for the greater struggle with which we were faced in 1939. In this struggle, felling was carried on to unprecedented lengths. We had to devastate our woods. What was worse, this was carried out on woodlands which had not yet recovered from the fellings of the former war.

Unfortunately, that is not the end of the story. The world to-day is avid for timber. Europe cannot supply us. We need timber desperately for building, for coal-mines, and for various other industrial purposes, which means that we have got to go on felling in our own woods and in woods in which the condition does not justify such a course. But we are faced. I am reluctant to say, with that position. However, there is this satisfaction. The whole nation, as well as His Majesty's Government, realizes at last the great importance of forestry, the essential need of building up a large area of forest in this country, and is determined to go ahead with a policy which will carry that out. It is important not only to have timber for immediate needs, but to build a reserve against any new crisis such as the noble Earl warned us of, and the maintain our climate, our rainfall, and the fertility of our soil. A forestry policy has been worked out. As noble Lords know, the Forestry Commissioners provided us with two comprehensive reports which have been very fully debated in your Lordships' House on other occasions. The Forestry Act of 1945 raised the status of forestry and placed the responsibility of our forestry policy on the Minister. This, I think was done to give it a chance of reconciling the two claims, those of agriculture and forestry, which sometimes compete but more often work together and dovetail in with each other. The Act was actually passed in the last days of the Coalition Government. The present Government have now defined the more immediate scope of forestry development.

Your Lordships will no doubt have seen the statement of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, in another place, in which he said he was going to make available to the Forestry Fund the sum of £20,000,000 in instalments over the five financial years 1946–50. This, I would like to point out, is the first half of the programme as envisaged in the Commissioner's Report. This sum is to cover all the activities of the Forestry Commission, including State forestry, private forestry, and such matters as education and research, research being very important. In his Motion the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, dealt chiefly with private forestry. Again, I should like to pay a tribute to the private owners. Not only did they grow ninety per cent. but over ninety-five per cent. of the timber used in the two great wars. It is a great achievement, but economic conditions have changed very much this thing, and the Government were faced with a difficult question. Would it be possible to leave the future of our timber supply to a more or less laissez faire policy? Considering the crisis in which we are, and considering also what happened between the two wars in which we did not find ourselves anything like able to build up our resources, they decided the answer was "No," and that the State must help, and help to a very great degree. Far these reasons, the Government have adopted the Forestry Commissioner's dedication scheme which gives woodland owners the opportunity, with State assistance, to replant and manage their own woodlands.

I want to point out to the noble Earl, and to other noble Lords, that this scheme is a sympathetic approach to the problem. It is not meant to dragoon or order people about. I have to add, however, that, so important did the Government consider this policy of timber growing, that they decided the State would have to take over and manage suitable woodlands when the owners themselves are either unable or unwilling to do so. The Government, incidentally, have made provisions for helping the owners of woods which are not suitable for dedication, always provided that the timber so produced will be available in time of emergency.

The noble Earl who opened this debate has asked various questions in connexion with dedication, and I should like to deal with them at this point. In the first place, he asked whether dedication is to be interpreted in a reasonable manner. The answer is, of course, "Yes." As I have said, there is no wish on the part of the Forestry Commission to put over views against good management which the owner may have. In other words, if the owner has a good plan, the Forestry Commission will be only too delighted for him to go forward with that plan. It is only in the case where it is manifestly being badly run or where a plan is obviously unworkable, that the Commissioners would step in and suggest alternatives. Not only that, but the more knowledge possessed by the owner the less will be the need for forms or red tape which the noble Earl seems rather to have in his mind. The Forestry Commission is trying to help the owner who is playing the game and wants to do the job.

The noble Lord also asked whether there would be in the Scottish Office a Department for Scotland, and so forth. I think I can answer that question by explaining, very shortly, what exactly is the set-up which has been decided on. The Forestry Commission itself will be responsible for forestry in Great Britain. It will be responsible, jointly, to the two Ministers, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in England. There will be national committees for Wales, for Scotland and for England which will be used, largely, to carry out the policy of the Forestry Commission. There will also be regional committees which will be entirely advisory bodies. They will help in advice, knowing the local conditions. But, of course, the main policy must be the responsibility of the two Ministers jointly. They will have to answer for it to Parliament, either in this House or in another place. I want to make it clear that the Forestry Commission is not under the Ministry of Agriculture in any way. I am speaking now not in any capacity connected with the Ministry of Agriculture. I am simply speaking, because the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has asked me to do so, on behalf of the Forestry Commission. I hope that what I have just said clears up that particular point.

Now we come to the rather vexed question of the planting grants in the dedication schemes. The noble Earl asked me whether the figure of £7 an acre had been decided upon. The answer is, "Yes: definitely it has." There will be a grant of £7 10s. an acre and 2s. 6d. maintenance grant per acre for the period of fifteen years. There has also been agreement on the other basis of 25 per cent., if the owners should wish for it. In other words, the owner will have the chance of accepting 25 per cent. or he can take a planting grant of £7 an acre with a maintenance grant for fifteen years at the rate of 2S. 6d. an acre. In that connexion this point must be kept in mind. Grants can be revised after fifteen years on the basis of ascertained costs. This problem of cost is a very difficult one, and if the Commissioners think that the prices have gone up or down tremendously they can be revised after fifteen years. There is one proviso which I should also like to bring to the notice of your Lordships' House. It is an essential part of this covenant that in the event of dedication breaking down and not working, so that the State has to assume management, any financial assistance which has been afforded should be taken fully into account in the terms of the settlement. I think that noble Lords will agree that that is only fair.

LORD BINGLEY

Will the planting grant he retrospective?

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

That, I am afraid, I cannot answer. It would be necessary for me to have notice of that question beforehand in order to supply the information which is sought. To the next question I am afraid I must give an answer which will be disappointing to the noble Earl. I refer to the question of loans. This is an extremely vexed question and it is still under discussion. Therefore I cannot make a final statement to-day. On the other hand, my right honourable friend the Minister will be making a statement on agriculture and forestry in another place in the near future, and I hope that when he makes it these final points will be cleared up.

The noble Earl further asked: Will felling licences be continued? The answer is very definitely "Yes." We must conserve what timber we have, and I do not think that, on the whole, there should be any great opposition on the part of forest owners who, for the most part, would probably be glad not to fell for some time. They have had a certain remuneration during the war years which ought to keep them happy for the moment. The noble Earl also made the very interesting suggestion that a levy of 2d. per acre should be raised—presumably on all dedicated properties—for fire insurance. I think that the Marquess of Aberdeen made a similar suggestion. This, of course, is a new suggestion, and I think if there was a general demand for this levy the Forestry Commissioners would be prepared to go into it and work out its possibilities. The final question asked by the noble Earl was in regard to trespass. I think we all realize the necessity of preserving our woods, and if the Government find that the present law in this connexion inadequate to deal with this they will no doubt consider more stringent legislation.

The noble Duke the Duke of Buccleuch also raised certain questions to-day. The first was about the advisory services. I hope that the noble Duke will understand that with the present staff it is very difficult to get these under way quickly. The Forestry Commissioners will do their best to get these advisory services into operation as soon as possible. I hope that the forestry owners will make full use of them. The noble Duke also asked about regional committees doing advisory work, but I think I have answered that question. Then he raised the question of pit props and prices. This really is a question for the Board of Trade. It is a very important question, it is being considered now by the Government and I hope that some further information will be available shortly. Lastly, I think, he raised the question of housing. Well, the Government are very much alive to the rural housing problem and your Lordships will have noticed a new scale of subsidies which was announced recently for rural houses. The forestry house presents a particular problem of its own, and it will obviously have to be considered as an individual problem. In fact, the Secretary of State for Scotland is shortly meeting with the various bodies interested in this matter to discuss it as a special problem of its own, and I hope that satisfactory results will be achieved through that meeting.

The noble Lord, Lord Brocket, also put one or two questions. In regard to what he said about taxation I am afraid that without notice I could not give him a full answer. It is an extremely complex matter. I do appreciate his point as to fair treatment, and he will notice what I have said about grants being reviewed after fifteen years. That has definitely been laid down. I hope that I have covered roughly, at any rate, most of the questions that have been asked in the course of the debate. I should like to finish up by saying how much the Government appreciate the very great necessity of getting our woodlands into order again, and replanting on a very large scale. I can assure the noble Earl that they are determined to treat this matter as one of the utmost importance and urgency.

5.18 p.m.

LORD ALTRINCHAM

My Lords, I rise for the purpose of making only one point, but before I come to that may I add my tribute from this Bench to all the well-deserved tributes which have already been paid to the noble Earl for the service which he has rendered in putting down this Motion and for the admirable way in which he has presented it. I think that his speech was received with admiration and acceptance in all parts of the House. Now for my point. The statement made from the Government Bench was, in our opinion, extremely satisfactory, except in one respect, and we are very grateful for it. One point on which we are not clear relates to this question of the grant and making it retrospective. This is of vital importance because planting must begin at once. Every week that it is delayed is a serious national loss. On two points I would like an immediate answer. First, is the grant to be paid now? Can they count on getting the grant as from now onwards or, if not, when does the grant begin?

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I understand that the grant will be available as soon as the woods have been accepted for dedication.

LORD ALTRINCHAM

But if woodland owners start planting now and their woods are accepted may they then count on getting the grant retrospectively to when they began planting? That is the important thing, otherwise nothing could go ahead.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I am afraid I cannot give a definite answer on that, but there should be no delay for woodland owners who have sent in their applications to get them accepted in a very short time.

LORD ALTRINCHAM

I urge the Government to go into this as a matter of great urgency and to give this grant retrospectively. I am glad that my feeling was reciprocated in the Benches opposite. Everybody knows the immense debt the nation owes to the private woodland owners who have carried them through two wars and I think that in justice to them the grant should be decided upon immediately and made retrospective.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I have just had some information on this point. The grant is retrospective and the money will be payable as soon as the applications have been accepted.

5.22 p.m.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, is quite right in saying that on the whole the reply from the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, is satisfactory, much more satisfactory than I expected to get from the Benches opposite. There are only one or two points I wish to allude to at this late hour. I cannot agree with all the strictures passed by the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, on the private nurseryman because while there have been cases of gross overcharging I think he was a little too sweeping in his allusions and did a great many of them an injustice, although I admit that in certain cases the strictures were justified. With regard to the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, I was in complete disagreement with him when he suggested that it would be a good thing for forestry to be under the Ministry of Agriculture rather than the Minister personally and I was glad to have the assurance of the noble Earl that he was speaking as Secretary for Forestry rather than as Secretary for the Ministry of Agriculture. That is to say, that if there is a question of land to be utilized in the future the Minister will listen to agricultural officers on the one hand and the Forestry Commission on the other and will not be biased on either side. That will relieve the minds of a great many people on both sides of the border. I press the point made on the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, on whether the grant will be free of tax or not, because not only would it be a case of reducing it from £7 10s. to 3 15s. but super-tax might also come into operation so that the £7 10s. might not be much more than 7s. 6d. so far as some owners were concerned. That would, I think, completely defeat the object of the assistance.

There is one other point, and that is that sheep farming and forestry must be considered to a small extent competitive, and the animadversions I made on the Forestry Commission, because they planted out some land which was really too good for afforestation, were quite justified. There is a certain type of agriculturist who objects to any kind of land being removed from agriculture and devoted to forestry, and I was trying to say that there are vast areas of such land all over Britain which, from a national point of view and from the point of view of economics would be far better off under forestry. This has been a most instructive debate, one of those in which your Lordships' House appears to the best advantage and into which politics did not enter, and I now beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

5.26 p.m.