FORESTRY POLICY

HL Deb 23 February 1955 vol 191 cc388-452

3.50 p.m.

Debate resumed.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

My Lords, many of us know that the noble and learned Earl has shown a very keen and helpful interest in forestry, its progress and development, and we are grateful to him for the way in which he has introduced his Motion. We also know that he has taken every opportunity, by personal experience, to understand forestry problems, and we regard his observations as of the greatest importance. In most respects, those of us who are concerned in forestry are in agreement with them. Our attention has been drawn to the question of acquisition of land and to the speed of reafforestation. I think it should be widely agreed that it is essential for the Forestry Commission to have sufficient land, both for their immediate planting and for planning their future planting. Though it is correct, as the noble Earl has said, that annual acquisitions of land are less than the acreages planted annually, we ought to remember that there is still a substantial reserve of land from previous acquisitions, which at the beginning of the year 1954 amounted in the United Kingdom to 314,000 acres. I hope, therefore, that there is room for more encouragement about the land in hand.

At the same time, useful warning has been given, and I think it is necessary to keep that in mind and to take more steps to see that the Forestry Commission do have sufficient land. When the 5 million-acre programme was first started, it was considered by many countrymen to be a very large programme, but I am sure that there is now much more general recognition of the fact that it was a modest programme, when compared with the national requirements and with the percentage of land given over to forestry in other countries. As the noble and learned Earl has emphasised to-day, the demands upon shipping in times of emergency are very serious, and by more rapid reafforestation we can do a great deal to ease that aspect. I feel that owners of land and farmers could and should help more in the selection of suitable land and in offering land for afforestation.

There is certainly a difficulty in securing hill land, especially, perhaps, in view of the encouragement which has been given to hill farming and the emphasis which has been placed, and rightly placed, upon food production in this country. I feel that the strongly-held opinion about trees, which used to be common among shepherds and hill farmers, is less strong than it was, now that we all realise that some land is required for forestry. This subject is worthy of careful consideration in all rural parts of the country, and especially in our upland valleys where there has been depopulation and where there are now very few people and no trees at all. I am sure it will seem to most persons that parts of many of our hill farms are well suited to forestry and can be spared to forestry, and that they would provide useful shelter, be of little loss to farming and, indeed, often an improvement.

At the same time, I think, we should consider rather more the depopulation aspect. With the small communities in those out-of-the-way places, partly filled primary schools, lack of public transport and services to the towns, we should consider the advantage in those areas of having more houses and a larger population which would grow with the reafforestation. The feeling about this problem among hill farmers and sheep men has in the past been rather hostile, as has been stated, and I feel that it is up to any of us who have the opportunity to do all that can be done to secure their confidence and support for the provision of more land for planting. The noble and learned Earl has given a warning that without such co-operation some use of compulsory purchase may be necessary. I feel that we should like to avoid this, and I hope that it can be avoided. I believe the Forestry Commission are correct in feeling that they will secure more popularity and support if they can avoid it.

The noble and learned Earl has referred to some of the problems in private forestry. My own view is that the private woodland owner needs some confidence and assurance that he is economically justified in planting and that there is some prospect that it will prove at least a reasonable investment for his successors. The Forestry Commission, in their Report, and their official spokesmen, at different times, have, I am pleased to see and to hear, referred to the amount of planting carried out by private woodland owners. They stated that this planting has been up to the acreage which was asked for, and that it is satisfactory, so, far as it goes. I think, however, that most of us who are foresters would like to see our contribution larger and would like to see it increased as quickly as possible. I believe the responsible Ministers recognise that there are many problems affecting private woodland owners. If there is criticism of the fact that more has not been done, I would point to the fact that the acreage of 18,000 acres in. the year 1953 was regarded as satisfactory. In those years when private woodland owners were not able to make a bigger contribution there were several causes, many of which were out of their control. In some years since the war there has been a scarcity of transplants for planting, especially in certain species which were required at different places.

Then, again, it has to be remembered that, in the main, private woodland owners are planting and replanting very small woodlands, where the cost is very much higher than in those large blocks which are normally planted by the Forestry Commission. The Commissioners are fully aware of this, and of the special problem arising, but that does not alter the fact that the costs of planting are very much higher. A reference has been made to-day to the windblow, which did irretrievable damage in the North of Scotland. It should not be overlooked that there has been very severe wind damage, both on that occasion and at many different times in other parts of Scotland, which has caused similar suffering to many others.

The noble and learned Earl referred to, the licensing and the felling which was still continuing. My view is that we cannot cut too much timber, provided that we take it from thinnings and by improvement fellings. It is only by clear felling that too much cutting can be done. There are many problems for private-forestry, which we are doing our best to overcome; and among them is the shortage of houses and the shortage of men in those places where it would otherwise be possible to do more planting. It should perhaps be remembered that, alone of the national industries, those of us who are connected with the land are the only ones who have to provide houses for our own employees. All the other industries, which have the benefits of protection, and also, as a rule, other things, have houses provided for their men. I feel that private forestry is doing a good job under present conditions. I hope that the sympathy of the Ministers and the Commission will increase and accelerate our progress.

4.3 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, on the last occasion when I made a Parliamentary speech about forestry, which was eleven or twelve years ago in another place, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, was in charge of the debate and replied for the Government. The noble and learned Earl, as he has just reminded us, at that time was the Minister in the Coalition Government who was responsible for anticipating a great number of post-war projects, one of which was forestry. I recall that in that debate the noble and learned Earl in his speech referred, and I think I also referred, to the first Royal Commission which dealt with the national forest policy in Great Britain: that was the Royal Commission on Coast Erosion and Afforestation, which presented its Report in the year 1909. Probably most people have forgotten it now, partly because it was a long time ago and partly because nothing was done about it by the Liberal Government of that time.

Its principal recommendation was that 9 million acres of land should be afforested in the British Isles, of which half a million were to be in Ireland (for which we are no longer responsible), 2½ million in England and no less than 6 million acres in Scotland. Six million acres was the target laid down for Scotland by the Royal Commission of 1909. A few years later, in the First World War, the Acland Sub-Committee, on whose Report the present Forestry Commission was founded, proposed a much less ambitious programme of 2 million acres for the whole United Kingdom. That was the programme on which we were supposed to be working between the wars, although in fact the annual rate of planting gave no reason to hope that even this very modest objective would ever be attained. But that was not the fault of the Forestry Commission, for its scale of operations was twice severely cut by the Government, first at the time of the "Geddes Axe" in 1922, and then again on the advice of the May Committee on Economy in 1931, when the Government completely upset the programme of the Forestry Commission and compelled it to destroy millions of young trees in its nurseries in order to effect the very paltry saving of a few hundred thousand pounds, which would now be worth many times that amount to the country.

I do not think there has ever been any official estimate of the capital value of the young woods planted by the Forestry Commission between the two wars and which are now from sixteen to thirty-six years old. They are increasing in value every day, but, if we may judge by the prices which are being paid for young woods of similar ages at estate auctions and private sales in various parts of the country, the value of the young woods planted by the Forestry Commission between 1919 and 1939 can hardly be worth less than £50 million at the present time, while the sums voted by Parliament to the Forestry Commission during those twenty years were just over £10 million. What a good thing it would be if all Government expenditure were equally profitable to the country!

Since the Second World War we have been operating on what is rather optimistically called this "desirable programme." Rather wistfully known as a "desirable programme," it contemplates the planting of 5 million acres in fifty years, of which it is understood that 2½ million are to be in England and the other 2½ million in Scotland. I should first like to ask your Lordships to observe that while the so-called "desirable programme" for England is exactly the same as the target laid down by the Royal Commission of 1909, forty-six years ago, the target for Scotland is less than half the figure which was then proposed. I am not going to take up your Lordships' time by discussing whether the original figure of 6 million was too high. I think it may have been rather too high, but I am equally sure that the present target of 2½ million acres for Scotland is less than what would be desirable if we were to take a long view of the future interests of the country. Therefore it is all the more disturbing to see from the Reports which are published each year by the Forestry Commission that this "desirable programme" is not being maintained and that the annual rate of planting is falling far short of what would be necessary in order to plant the proposed acreage within the required period of time.

I received this morning from Edinburgh some more recent figures than those contained in the 1953 Report. These show that planting in Scotland in 1954, under all headings—that is, Forestry Commission, private planting, replanting of old woodlands and afforestation of new areas —is almost exactly the same as it was in 1953. That brings the total area planted in Scotland since the war up to 102,000 acres of old woodland replanted, and 145,000 acres of new ground afforested, making 247,000 altogether. The noble and learned Earl has given us the figures for the first decade of the "desirable programme," of which 550,000 acres would be applicable to Scotland. Since we have planted not quite 250,000 acres, and as there are now only two more years of the first decade left, it is obvious that there is not much hope of attaining more than three-fifths of our programme for the first ten years. But w hen we come to look forward to the second decade. which begins with the forestry year 1956–57, the position is very much worse, for, as your Lordships will see from the summary on page 8 of the most recent Report, the amount of plantable land acquired by the Commission in Scotland in 1953 was only 13,000 acres, compared with 34,000 planted; and my information is that the figure for 1954 is equally disappointing. It is necessary to acquire land a good long time in advance, to give time for all the necessary drainage, construction of access roads and buildings and other preparatory work, and the Commission must have some substantial reserves in hand if they are to have a long-term planting programme.

The noble and learned Earl gave the figures for the first decade. I do not think he went on to the second decade, which lays down a programme of 1½ million acres, commencing 1956–57, of which 750,000 acres will be in Scotland. Since we are planting now at the rate of 34,000 acres by the Commission and about 9,000 acres by private planters, and since at the moment in Scotland the Commission have a reserve of only 130,000 acres of plantable ground, it is obvious that if acquisition can proceed at only this derisory rate of 13,000 acres a year, then it will be a matter of only a year or two before the Commission will have to cut down its planting programme to about half the present rate, which means about one quarter of the "desirable programme."

The reason why the Forestry Commission in Scotland cannot get enough land is not that the land is not being offered for sale—a great deal is being offered—but the Commission are often prohibited from buying it by the Government, on the advice of the Department of Agriculture, on the ground that the land which they are willing to buy ought to be used for hill sheep farming. Since I think this prohibition is a mistake, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for troubling you with one or two figures, because I consider it is important to understand how the national interest is affected, both in peace and in war. I think the most comprehensive comparison of the amount of food compared with the amount of timber which can be produced by a given quantity of good hill farming land is in the White Paper of 1943, to which the noble and learned Earl has already made reference. This White Paper assumes that for every one hundred acres of hill grazing land that is planted 110 sheep are displaced, of which 75 are breeding ewes. No doubt that will seem to your Lordships to be a very heavy sheep stock indeed, as it certainly is. But I think the author of the White Paper felt it right to assume that when a hill farm is acquired for planting all the land, unplantable as well as plantable, is cleared of sheep. Of course, that seldom happens in practice. In fact, in Argyll, where the Forestry Commission have planted 55,000 acres, the sheep population is greater than it was when the forestry operation began. So this comparison in the White Paper is probably much too favourable to sheep farming.

Nevertheless, let us take the figures which are contained in the White Paper. It is pointed out that for every acre of hill sheep land that is planted the country will loose just over 12 lb. of mutton and just over 3 lb. of wool every year. On the other hand, so far as timber is concerned you would get nothing at all for the first eighteen years or so, but the annual average works out at one and a half tons of timber a year, which I think is a fairly modest estimate. Would your Lordships be good enough to consider both monetary value and weight—they are both important, because in time of peace our object is to save foreign currency, and in time of war to save shipping space. In monetary value, taking the present price of any class of thinnings, and so on, through the rotation, you will find that the monetary value of the timber is about three times that of the mutton and wool; so that in relation to foreign currency, we are three times better off during peace. If you take weight, which is more important in time of war, then the weight of timber produced is two hundred times the weight of mutton and wool if the wood is on a normal rotation. Of course, during a war the Government always step in and cut down a lot of immature wood, so that the normal felling rate is multiplied by about three, in which case you would get six hundred times the weight of material from your timber as you would get from your mutton and wool. One is often told that in time of war we must all feed and that we cannot eat trees. Of course we cannot; but in time of war we need both food and timber, and enemy submarines will sink food and timber ships with complete impartiality; so it is obviously a good thing to grow six hundred times as much shipping space in the shape of timber, as we can grow in food, on one particular piece of land.

Now let us take the question of employment. The number of men employed directly by an afforestation scheme is usually about ten times the number of shepherds employed on hill farming. When the wood develops you begin to get ancillary increases and the figure becomes twenty or thirty times as many. Although, mercifully, we have not an unemployment problem at the moment, we have the problem of re-populating the Highlands. I would remind your Lordships that the average age of those living in the Scottish Highlands is now fifty years. It is fortunate that most Highlanders retain their virility to a great age, but it is not a good thing for any country to be almost entirely abandoned by its youth. The noble and learned Earl mentioned crofters. The most important point about the crofters is that we want to preserve as many of them as possible, for social reasons. Most of them have far greater difficulties than the large sheep farmer in regard to getting a living out of their croft, but they do not have to spend the whole of their time on their holding. What they need is more ancillary industries to provide them with part-time work, and forestry is ideally suited for that purpose.

I am all in favour, as I am sure all your Lordships are, of combining hill farming with afforestation; but, in my view, the right way to combine it is by freedom and not by prohibition. We shall not do any good, either to afforestation or to hill farming, by sending Government officials or members of the agricultural executive committees to report to the Department that a certain piece of land which the Forestry Commission want to buy ought not to be planted because they think that 5,000 tons of mutton and wool is of greater value to the country than 1 million tons of timber. I feel bound to say that I think this is a rather short sighted and unprogressive attitude, and one which is far too common among many branches of the National Farmers' Union and also among many members of the agricultural executive committees, under which, I feel I must say, I think the Scottish Office have rather weakly succumbed. This unprogressive attitude, more than anything else, is responsible for hampering and frustrating the development of our forestry programme, which is so urgently needed both for the national economy and for the regeneration of the Scottish Highlands. If there were here any question of the Forestry Commission seeking to acquire a piece of land by compulsion—which they have never yet sought to do—and of the owner of that land objecting on the ground that the land should continue to be used for agricultural purposes, then I would say, "By all means send out the team of hired assassins to make their report and let the Secretary of State decide what ought to be done." But if the land is freely offered for sale by the owner, and if the Forestry Commission consider it worth buying, then interference by another Government Department is entirely unjustified. It is one of the relics of wartime bureaucratic control which should have been abandoned some time ago.

I know that there is, also, a question of political principle, to which the noble Earl alluded, at least indirectly: whether Government officials ought to be allowed to decide what is to be done with all our land. I am prepared to admit that there may be a case for giving a Government official power to say that land shall not be entirely wasted, that it shall not be used for no good purpose at all: but when it is a question of deciding whether the land should be used for one good purpose or another good purpose, and there is a difference of opinion as to which is the better one, then I believe that the officials of the Department of Agriculture and members of the agricultural executive committee are not the right people to decide the question. I have the greatest admiration for the conscientious way in which they carry out their duties, but it is doing them no injustice to say that their qualifications for deciding these questions are sometimes inferior to those of the people with whom they are trying to interfere.

This question ought to be left to free contract between the person who sells the land and the person who buys it, whether that purchaser be a private individual or the Forestry Commission. It is our duty to see that the Forestry Commission are enabled to get the necessary land to carry out the programme with which Parliament has charged them. I earnestly represent to Her Majesty's Government that they might consider whether this impolitic prohibition on the purchase by the Commission of land freely offered for sale ought not now to be completely abandoned.

I had intended to conclude with a word about private forestry, but that point has been partly covered by the noble Duke who has just spoken. I have always thought that forestry offers an ideal field for the most fruitful co-operation between private enterprise and State enterprise. I believe that the country owes a great debt to its private foresters, for it was they who did all the planting which did so much to save this country in two world wars. During those wars the Government, quite rightly, had to requisition and fell vast areas of timber which was immature and which, had normal rotation continued, would not even vet have been cut. The private owner is often unfairly criticised by members of the public for not replanting quickly enough. It is not realised that the Government have requisitioned and felled thousands of acres of wood, whereas the private owner, in normal rotation, might not have felled more than 100 or 200 acres; and he cannot, of course, replant it all at once.

I do not think it would now be possible for private owners, without the Forestry Commission, to do anything like the amount of replanting required by the interests of the country, partly because of high taxation and partly because of the uncertainty of the future. No one can ever plant for his own personal profit, unless he is a very young man who expects to live to be a centenarian. If he plants for the benefit of his grandchildren he cannot be sure what the Government will do, when the time comes, about his grandchildren, if they are ever born. For those reasons, it is right to make certain adjustments on taxation on woodlands and to give certain grants in order to induce private owners to plant more. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, suggested that more inducements might be given, and I am glad that he did so. I hope also that more will be done to make the inducements which already exist a little more widely known, because I am often surprised to find people who know nothing about them.

I am sure that on this question there is no real Party disagreement. There is good will among all Parties towards the private planter, although in Government circles there is not always complete understanding of forestry problems. The noble and learned Earl will doubtless remember that in the Budget of 1948 it was proposed to abolish the choice between being taxed under Schedule B or Schedule D, which, had it been insisted upon, would have completely killed private forestry. I have no doubt that the proposal was brought in from a desire for tidiness or as the result of some mistake. Fortunately, when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, was convinced by the representations which were made to him that it would do a great deal of harm, he immediately agreed to withdraw the proposal. I hope that all Chancellors of the Exchequer will be as reasonable as he was; but the mere fact that such a mistake could be made, even by accident, tends to undermine confidence in the future.

After the war, the dedication scheme in Scotland did not at first go as well as it should have gone, partly because there was some suspicion, probably unjustified, among a number of private owners that the people at the top of the Forestry Commission were sometimes unsympathetic and unfair towards their problems. That suspicion would certainly not be justified to-day. It is an accusation which could never at any time have been brought against the district officers of the Commission whose duty it is to assist private planting. In my experience these officers have always been willing to take infinite trouble to assist private planters, both in giving advice and in facilitating their claims to the various kinds of assistance which are provided by Parliament. I believe all noble Lords will agree that it would be a very great pity if all our planting had to be done by the Forestry Commission, for we should then lose so much knowledge and skill from private planters, some of whom can perhaps make experiments and take risks which a public servant might not be so well justified in doing. There are unlimited ways in which State forestry and private foresters can assist each other for the general good.

I believe the greatest obstacle to a large-scale forestry programme, private or public, is simply the fact that the life of the tree is so much longer than the life of a man. It is always difficult to persuade some people, whether they be private owners, politicians, Government officials or electors, to look more than a few inches in front of their noses. I think it was William Pitt, when he introduced his Sinking Fund in 1786, who, when it was pointed out to him that it would be a generation or two before it could do much good to anyone, replied: "It will amount to a very great sum in a period which is but an hour in the life of a great nation. It advances with a velocity which is continually accelerated, with a force which is continually increased, mobilitate viget viresque acquirit eundo." I think that those words of William Pitt apply with peculiar appropriateness both to public and to private afforestation. The private forester who chooses to dedicate his land and to manage it in accordance with the principles of good forestry may be able to entertain only the hope that he may benefit his grandchildren, but he can, at least, enjoy the certainty that he will benefit his country.

4.30 p.m.

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, I thought it might be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if I intervened at this stage of the debate to comment on some of the wider aspects of forestry policy which have been raised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and other noble Lords, and if my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn at the end of the debate took up some of the more detailed points and answered them in greater detail. Perhaps this is an appropriate occasion on which to separate the wood from the trees. My first words, of course, must be that we all feel much indebted to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, for his introduction of this Motion and for making this forestry debate possible. As he said, it is timely. It is a long time since we had a survey of the national forestry plan, and a progress report is overdue.

We are indebted to him, too, for putting forestry into the wide setting of the country's economic and strategic fortunes, because in that way he has drawn attention to the significance of forestry for our future welfare. And I say at once that I accept under these headings—the economic and strategic—the figures of illustration which he gave. With regard to the figure of £157 million worth of imports which he quoted, we have, in fact, to add somewhere about £84 million which we have spent on imports of pulp. It is clear that for every shipped ton we save, we do make a contribution to the balance of payments and to solving the difficulties which face our country, particularly in hard currency trading.

To the economic and the strategic aspects of forestry, the noble and learned Earl added the social aspect. If he had not done so, I should have done it myself, because there are areas of our country which have been losing population fairly fast to the towns, and this has resulted in a lack of balance affecting the whole community. Forestry, intelligently used, can undoubtedly prove a very real instrument of repopulation. I think that fact in this matter is a great deal more valuable than theory. I could multiply these illustrations, but this one I will give to your Lordships. In the district of Inverliever, in the Highlands, where forty years ago, on moderate quality sheep ground, there were forty persons employed and eleven children of school age, there are now 150 persons employed by the Forestry Commission alone, and 120 children of school age and under. When you add to that the employment which has come from timber merchants, when you add the village post office and the village shop, when to that there is added the village children and the other aspects of community life, there has undoubtedly been made in that area a community which is self-contained and self-reliant. So I doubt if any of your Lordships would dispute that, on the broad grounds, economic, strategic and social, the case for afforestation is made.

What then should be the desirable target for the United Kingdom? The original suggestion and estimate by the Forestry Commission was, as noble Lords have already said, 5 million acres—3 million to come from new afforestation and 2 million from existing woodland areas. I think that this is still a valid estimate of what we ought to aim at, and we accept it as such. A certain amount has been said to this effect, and I think we must seriously consider the question of timing, because the original estimates of the total at which we should aim varied, as noble Lords have said; there were various periods in which certain acreages should be planted.

The Government of the day tried to formulate the post-war plans of the Forestry Commission, and tried to do so in war time, when it was not possible to foresee the working conditions which would operate afterwards. I think they could not foresee that there would be quite such an intensive drive for food production. I think that if they had had in their hands the Reports of the Committees presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, on hill land, they might not have made quite such an optimistic forecast for the first ten years. Those Committees reported on hill farming both in Scotland and in England. The Forestry Commission could not, I think, have anticipated the shortage of capital which prevailed over a considerable time, nor the intense competition for available labour in years of full employment. Nor could they have anticipated, as the noble Duke has said, the shortage of plants, which has handicapped a good many people in these years. The upshot of all this is, I think, that the Forestry Commission certainly could not begin full operations until the planting season 1946–47. Private owners were in the same boat and perhaps worse off, particularly in respect of the shortage of labour and shortage of plants.

So I come to this conclusion—I am not going to quarrel with the noble and learned Earl's general analysis and conclusions, but I am going to make a slight adjustment of his figures: it may be useful to have them on record in Hansard. I think these are figures which are in keeping with the realities of the situation. The Forestry Commission worked on the basis that the first year of full results in which they could operate fully was the year 1946–47; therefore the last year of the decade will be 1956–57. On this basis they should have planted 650,000 acres. In fact, they have planted 417,000 acres. So the rate of planting for each of the last two years should have been 125,000 acres but was, in fact, 67,600 acres in 1953 and 70,400 acres in 1954. The private owners should have planted 150,000 acres, and they have, in fact, planted 80 per cent. of that target. They should have planted at the rate of 25,000 acres in the last two years. In fact, last year they have planted 19,000 acres. That is a very creditable record.

Though I have made these slight adjustments in the figures, nevertheless, on any calculation, there is a shortfall on intention, and we accept the position that it is necessary to quicken the pace if it is at all possible. The noble and learned Earl attached no blame to anyone, least of all to the Forestry Commission. Let me say at once that they have been quick and efficient, and could not have worked harder to achieve the results which the nation want. I think it would be fair to sum up the general diagnosis of the reasons why we are falling behind by making two points—first, the doubt whether owners of private woodlands, with constantly rising costs, regard forestry as a good enough investment, and secondly, the difficulty for the Forestry Commission of acquiring land.

So far as private woodlands are concerned, I think it is right that I should remind your Lordships (though perhaps you do not need any reminding of it) that until recently it has been the owners of private woodlands, and the owners of private woodlands only, who have supplied the nation's timber needs. They have supplied timber in two wars, and all the glorious hardwoods in our country which are our delight were planted by private woodland owners. I do not recall that to excite gratitude—as we all know, there is very little gratitude in anything to do with public life: I recall it because it is instinctive in good estate management, and the private owner will try to keep his estate equipped with good and efficiently run woodlands. I think the fact that now, in these difficult post-war years, private owners have achieved 80 per cent. of the target set them is a proof of that.

Nevertheless, as the noble and learned Earl has said, private owners have been subjected to uneconomic felling in war time by cutting their timber when it was largely immature. The acreage to be replaced—1,119,000 acres—is so huge that the economics of replanting are of great importance. Of course, Parliament accepts that, as my noble friend Lord Dundee has said. Last year, £350,000 was paid out in grants to private woodland owners, and there are certain tax remissions connected with forestry. One comparatively new grant is in relation to the clearing of scrub. By their deliberate policy the Government direct grants to the private woodland owner to help him replant as quickly as possible and thereby meet the nation's need. I want to make it clear that I am not issuing an invitation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I should certainly get into trouble if I did anything of the kind—but, nevertheless, the Government are very ready either to extend grants or to revise and adjust grants if that can be shown to be necessary on merit.

I would now say a word on marketing, which was touched on by the noble and learned Earl. The market of the private owner of timber is bound to become more difficult as the activities of the Forestry Commission grow and as they put their timber on the market. It is known that the private woodland owners are not getting the best prices, and the Government have appointed Mr. Watson's Committee to look into this matter. I very much hope that we shall get some practical advice from them. The noble and learned Earl asked about the progress of dedication. As I think he knows, there were legal difficulties which had to be overcome, but a revised edition of the dedication covenant is now being brought out, which has been accepted by the representatives of the United Kingdom forest owners. It will be published with a booklet when certain drafting difficulties have been overcome. At present there are 343,000 acres dedicated and 44,000 acres being managed under schemes approved by the Forestry Commission. The dedicated area is 12 per cent. of the whole area of private woodlands, with 6 per cent. under negotiation: the approved woodland area is 2 per cent. with another 2 per cent. under negotiation. It is hoped that when this new dedication scheme is introduced, more people will feel it worth while to dedicate. I hope we shall come back to that, after the report of the Watson Committee has been published, in a separate debate on the part which the private woodlands owners can play.

I am going to leave that side of the question with this invitation to the private owners, which was supported by my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch—that they should revise their planting programmes, particularly the felled areas, and see whether they cannot quicken them up; and also that they should look with new eyes at the hill and marginal land, because I believe that there is there a considerable acreage of bracken-covered land which could well be afforested and where new plantations could be sited, not only to the advantage of the nation's timber position but also to the advantage of farming—one of the points made by my noble friend Lord Dundee. I should like to see the initiative for much closer co-operation, at national and local levels, coming from the forestry organisation, representing the landowners, from the National Farmers' Union, representing the tenants, and from the Forestry Commission. But if they would like the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Scotland to take the initiative in bringing them closer together, then our help will be readily given.

The second conclusion to which the noble and learned Earl came was that the Forestry Commission were behind-hand in the acquisition of land. What is a reasonable reserve of land to hold? In the first place, the Forestry Commission thought it would be right to hold ten times the amount of land in their annual planting programme. On review of that earlier consideration, they find that they would be comfortable with seven times that acreage, and that they could get along reasonably comfortably with six times. But at the present time the reserve of land is only four times the annual planting programme; and that is too low. I think it is justifiable to make the point that land does not come in on an even flow. While there might be lean years, there might be a sudden windfall; and in fact 1954 was better than 1953. Nevertheless, if we have to continue on a four-to-one ratio, the result will be that the rate of planting will be reduced from 70,400 last year to 69,000 in future years. Although that is not a great fall, it is a fall, and a fall which will get worse in the second ten-year period, as my noble friend Lord Dundee pointed out, unless we get more land.

We all want to overcome this difficulty of the shortage of land. I think we must face the agricultural side of this problem. I do not think my noble friend Lord Dundee quite did justice to this, but we shall see. Unquestionably the main cause of the shortage of land for afforestation is that time and again a choice (I want to avoid the word "conflict") has to be made between timber and food. It was either the Government to which the noble Earl belonged or the Coalition Government, in which the Party opposite played a large part, which was responsible for the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts, under which a good many landowners and tenants are getting a great advantage. It is thus in the hill and marginal lands, as everybody agrees, that the scope for increased forestry is the greater. When there is opposition to a particular scheme of acquisition by the Forestry Commission, I am bound to tell your Lordships that I seldom find that it is sectional opposition. Of course, there is selfishness in all classes of society, as we all know. But the choice is really not sectional. In nine cases out of ten it is a genuine dilemma between timber and food, and both are of national interest at the present time. How can they be reconciled? The Forestry Commission can do a great deal to help, and I think they are doing a great deal to help by planting on poorer land. They must have goodish land to plant on—I do not argue that they should not. But they are able now, by improved techniques, to plant land which previously they thought was too poor; and, what is more, they think they are going to get good results.

The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, asked about peat and what was the success of the experiments there. I think it is too early to say. But if he will consult Bulletin No. 22, published by the Forestry Commission a few months ago and entitled Experiments in Tree Planting on Peat (he may already have read it) he will see that there is some hope there. However, we should not like to bank too much on that. With the fact that they can move on to poorer land, and in conjunction with a certain amount of better quality land—bracken slopes, for instance—I think they can do something themselves to reassure the farming community that they are not always aiming to get their best quality land, which is the criticism which comes from the farming community. But there is another point. In certain areas, and in the Highlands of Scotland in particular, we have instituted what is known as the Joint Forestry-Agriculture Survey. It works like this. The Forestry Commission go out into an area—it may be a county—and designate and map the area which is plantable. It is brought back and looked at by the, Department of Agriculture—actually they often go on to the land together—who say what is essential for efficient farming. As a result, there is a compromise and an agreed acreage, so that the Forestry Commission at any rate know where they can go to the best advantage to purchase land. I think that is a fairly good start. If there is a difference of opinion between the Forestry Commission and the Department of Agriculture, then it is always brought to a Minister to decide.

I will look into the point of administration which my noble friend Lord Dundee brought to our notice. He says that where an owner is willing to sell a farm to the Forestry Commission the Department of Agriculture should not interfere as between a willing seller and a willing buyer. I think I should agree. But it does not always happen like that; in fact, it is in the minority of cases that it is as simple as that. The tenant very often comes to the Department of Agriculture and objects, and often the agricultural executive committee will draw attention to the fact that the whole farm should not be used, but that only some of it should be used. It is not the Department who take the initiative in a good many cases, but those persons who have a perfect right to protect their interests. I hope that by administrative methods of this sort we can make an advance and succeed in reconciling what is a genuine dilemma.

The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, I will not say pleaded for, but broached the question whether the Forestry Commission should not ask for compulsory powers to be used. It is worth remembering that under the procedure a compulsory purchase order is quite likely to run the gauntlet of a public inquiry. That is not an easy procedure to get through when the interests of food production can be pleaded on the other side. But I should like to make it clear that, if the economic and the social circumstances justify it, the Ministers are ready to use compulsory powers in any individual case. Nevertheless, I must say this: I hope that no Government will ever use compulsory powers as more than a highly selective instrument of policy. The last thing the Forestry Commission would ask would be for powers of compulsion to go and take any land they liked the look of. The noble and learned Earl rather suggested, I think, that there was not much good will towards the Forestry Commission in the countryside. I would not accept that. But I certainly would say that, if they are to be accepted at all, they must be partners in a rural community, and they must co-operate with other rural industries and interests. To override these other industries, except in a special case, might, I think, have the very opposite effect to what the noble and learned Earl and all of us want: it might easily dry up the sources of land which they are now able to acquire by agreement. I repeat that I do not "wash out" the increased use of compulsory powers, but I hope that we shall never use them, save in the exceptional circumstances in which the economic, social, and therefore the national, interest clearly warrant it.

Lastly, the noble and learned Earl asked about crofters. I would, if I may, postpone this Scottish question. It is rather different from the English. In Scotland it is really a matter of common grazing, and the ground is grazed. Under the new Crofters (Scotland) Bill, however, a Crofters Commission is being set up with the object of reviving the economy of the crofting areas. The Committee which sat under Principal Taylor drew particular attention to the fact that forestry could play a large part in helping the crofters to re-establish themselves profitably in those areas. If I may, I will return to that. The noble and learned Earl asked me about the commons in England, and I am bound to say that I accept his analysis of the position: there are 2½ million acres (2,800,000 acres is the actual figure, I think) in England and Wales which are not being used as they should be at the present time; and they are largely unproductive.

The reason why I must ask for a little more time-although the noble and learned Earl asked me not to do so—is that we are examining this position, which is hideous in its legal complications, as he well knows. There are the owners of the soil, the commoners themselves, and the rights of the public, and they are interests which often conflict. I hope that the noble and learned Earl is not accusing us of doing nothing in order to gain delay, because that, after all, would be a Fabian tactic and nothing to do with us on this side of the House. I would give him this assurance: that although I think all Governments have looked at this question and, by and large, the more Governments look the less they like what they see, nevertheless we are not ignoring it. We are very conscious of its relevance to forestry policy, and if I cannot say anything now it is because we want to be certain in our examination, before we do say anything, of the possible methods which might be used to overcome the difficulty.

EARL JOWITT

Can the noble Earl give us any idea of when the examination will be concluded?

THE EARL OF HOME

I am afraid not, beyond what I have given to-day. However, I assure the noble and learned Earl that we understand the significance of this matter and fully appreciate the case that he has put forward.

I have sought this afternoon to concentrate the attention of your Lordships on certain broad features of forestry policy; on the significance of forestry to the national income; on the progress towards the desired goal; on the place of the private owner in the production of timber; on the use of compulsory powers and the preference for some other administrative methods. Meanwhile, certain tentative conclusions emerge. If we take the period from 1947 to 1957, the first ten-year period of full operations, it looks as though the private owners will probably reach their goal—indeed, they might possibly exceed it; but there is no doubt that the Forestry Commission cannot. Every possible effort must be made to help them to do so and to catch up their arrears in the second ten-year period.

There is no technical difficulty about doing this. Their planting methods are the most modern, and it could be done if the land were there. The falling of land into the market is not a regular process. There are lean years and there may be a windfall but, nevertheless, we should be vigilant and always keep the national interest in mind. I am prepared to use compulsory powers if necessary, but always remembering that they are a double-edged weapon which may defeat their own ends. I personally prefer the administrative suggestions which I tried to make earlier in my speech. So long as there is an all-out drive for food and an all-out drive for timber at the same time, there is bound to be a dilemma. But if it comes to the choice, the choice will not be made by officials in any individual case but by the Minister responsible.

I think that a significant additional acreage can be added. Indeed, it might end our troubles if the landowners would review their marginal land and if, as have suggested, the national organisations would get together in closer collaboration. One very true thing was said, I think, by the noble Duke; that is, that the planting of fine trees in these days is an act of faith. Above all, the planter of a tree wants continuity and confidence. All Governments can help to give that: some Governments will give more than others, but we will not go into that question today, because we are all harmonious and united. My conclusion is that in this matter of national forestry, while we are not going as fast as we should like, we are recording definite progress. I believe that if everybody would look at the land again, with a view to seeing where trees could be planted, it could be done without harm to agriculture—indeed, it would be to its positive benefit. Then in the second ten-year period we ought to enable the Forestry Commission to get near to its target.

5.3 p.m.

LORD WISE

My Lords, I think we should thank the noble Earl who has just sat down for a most informative speech. He has cleared up many points and made many suggestions which will be helpful in this discussion. I am intervening for only a short time because I am a small woodland owner just embarking upon that act of faith which the noble Earl mentioned a moment ago by undertaking limited planting in a small way, in order that possibly my children's children may benefit from my action. But, as with so many others in that position, the question of economics comes into my efforts and makes me show a leaning towards agriculture rather than towards forestry.

There are one or two points in the Report, which I have read fairly carefully and with great interest, that I should like to put to the noble Earl who is to reply. Perhaps I can obtain from him some information which may be of interest, not only to your Lordships here but to folks outside this House who are interested in the progress of forestry in this country. My noble and learned Leader made a forceful opening speech, and with some of the points which he made I am afraid that I am not in total agreement. I do not for one moment think that the Report which we are considering to-day should be treated too scathingly. No doubt during this first decade difficulties have arisen which make it impossible for the Forestry Commission at this time to be quite up to date with their plantings, and which will make it impossible for them to make up the leeway to bring them up to date in 1956–57. Later, I may have something to say upon the future programme, but I am anxious not only that the leeway should be made up, so far as possible, in the first decade, but that, in the interests of this country, the planting arrangements for the second ten years should be pushed forward with all speed, so that the total acreage at the end of the first twenty years may not be so much behind as it is at the present time.

The Scottish aspect will no doubt be covered very ably by noble Lords from Scotland, as has already been shown by the first speeches, and I wish to confine what I have to say to England. Looking at Table No. 1, on page 8 of the Report, I am happy to say that the English afforestation and replanting figures for the last year are fairly successful. There is not a marked increase, but there has been a certain increase from the one year to the next. Whether that increase has continued in the later years I cannot say. Therefore, the Report is somewhat unreal, because we have already covered nearly eighteen months of the Forestry Commission's work, and possibly it would have served our purpose better if we had waited for the next Report (which I hope will not be long in coming forward), because the two Reports together will make interesting reading.

One or two points occur to me. I wish to refer first to the question of thinnings which appears on page 8 of the Report. So far as I can see, there is nothing in the Report to show how many men are employed either in England or Scotland, or totally, by the Forestry Commission. There is reference to the increase in wages, but not to the numbers of employees covered. In regard to thinnings, the Forestry Commission's sales to the timber trade of standing timber consist for the most part of thinnings. I am not quite certain in my own mind whether this way of selling thinnings to the trade is a right one. I wonder whether the thinning should not be undertaken by the employees of the Forestry Commission and the thinnings sold direct to the trade, rather than that the Forestry Commission should sell the standing timber. That is one point I wish to make, because it seems to me that the duty of the Forestry Commission is not to import outside labour for the purpose, of obtaining the thinnings, but to use their own men on that work. Maybe they do, to some extent, but their own men should do the work entirely.

The question of new houses arises. The noble Earl may be able to tell us whether the numbers of houses now being erected are up to the quota required by the men. Regret has already been expressed here this afternoon that house building should have ceased or been curtailed. I think that that expression is correct. I hope it has been found possible to increase the rate at which the forestry houses are now being built. A question of smallholdings also arises. There are in the Report figures showing the numbers of holdings—they appear in table 24, page 41. There is here a record of agricultural holdings and agricultural land. I am wondering whether the numbers of forestry smallholdings occupied in the forests have decreased and what are the numbers of smallholdings the land of which during the last year or two has been afforested. I understand that there may be some resentment amongst the smallholders that land which is suitable for agriculture in those smallholdings, and which has always been used for agricultural purposes, has now been taken over by the Forestry Commission and planted with trees.

The noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, referred to Appendix 11, "Summary Area Statement of Land Use." So far as I remember, the noble Duke referred to the balance of plantable land and agricultural, unplantable land. In regard to England, your Lordships will notice that 359,000 acres are "under plantations," 114,000 acres additional land are "plantable" and 148,000 acres are "agricultural, unplantable." That seems to me to be a very high figure indeed. It seems to me that possibly some of that unplantable land might now, through the advance of forestry science, which was referred to by the noble Earl who has just sat down, be planted to increase the acreage under plantations. I want to refer to Thetford Chase which I know fairly well. Your Lordships will see from Appendix 12 that in the area of Thetford Chase there are 2,000 acres which are "plantable" and 13,000 acres which are "unplantable." As I go through Thetford Chase frequently, it seems to me that there is land which could be planted. I have in mind one particular area which, if I mention it, will come to the notice of the Forestry Commission: that is, a stretch of land as one comes from Stoke Ferry towards Brandon and approaches Weeting. There is on the right hand side of the road a large stretch of land which it seems to me should be planted if it is at all possible to do so. The adjoining land is planted, and this particular stretch, I am told, for what it is worth, is coveted by envious eyes for archeological purposes. It may be that this land has been set aside for some purpose of that sort but, whether or not that is so, I think that it should be tackled to bring it into full use, either for forestry purposes or for agricultural purposes. It may be that that is part of the land which is covered by the 2,000 acres—I do not know. I raise that point because it has occurred to me, in going through the Chase, that there are there many acres of land which could be used for forestry purposes.

I may be right or I may be wrong in my recognition of what may be the facts of the future, but this afternoon we have been talking a good deal on the question of bringing more land into afforestation. Nothing has been said as to what the future may hold in certain respects for this country and the uses to which we put timber. At the moment, we are passing from a timber age into another age altogether, an age in which steel, alloys, plastics and other commodities may be used and take the place of timber. Therefore, I wonder whether, after the next decade, say, we should give the same consideration to the production of timber in this country as we are doing at the present moment. We hope flat we shall not have to import timber or cut timber for war purposes again. It may be that, in the future, the woodlands and the forests of this country will have not so much a commercial value as an amenity and scenic value. Therefore, now may be the time for us to consider whether we should not reorientate our ideas as to what the future of forestry in this country will be. There is another point. We may be forced in this country to increase our food production. It occurs to me that, if such is the case, it will not be a question then of one Minister or another, or one body of officials or another, deciding whether the land shall be used for forestry or for food production. Obviously, if food is required—because we must remember that agricultural land is diminishing, to a fairly large extent—then the national economy and the national interests will turn our attention to food rather than to forestry. That may not happen in the lifetime of anyone in this House. I may be totally wrong in what I surmise, but I feel that we should give attention to the question of what are likely to be the needs of this country in these directions in the years which lie ahead.

5.20 p.m.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wise, has suggested that our interests in growing timber may be misplaced that timber may be supplanted by plastics or something else in the distant future, and that the land may be required for agriculture. I venture to think that if that policy were rigorously followed the land would not be very much use for agriculture, because our trees are largely responsible for our climate, and an alteration in the climate through the denudation of the country of its trees might be disastrous.

LORD WISE

May I just interrupt the noble Lord to say that I had no intention at all of saying that? I suggested that the trees and the woodlands of the future, and the plantations, which we are now planting, would have a greater amenity and scenic value, and, if you like, weather value, than they would have as a commercial proposition.

LORD SALTOUN

My main object in coming here this afternoon was to make quite sure that one thing was said; it has been said, better than I could have hoped to say it, by my noble friend Lord Dundee, speaking for another part of Scotland. My twelve or thirteen years' experience of working with local forestry officers is that, both in advice and in actual help, they are the best friends the private planter can have. We used to say that forestry was the Cinderella of the Department and the worst paid, and that it was a fortunate thing for the country that that was so, because they recruited nobody but those who were passionately devoted to trees. I do not know whether or not that is so. I believe that their circumstances have been improved since that time, but I hope that they are still careful to recruit only people who are passionately devoted to trees, because they have been the best servants of the country all the time that I have had experience of, and have been connected with, them. I speak for one part of Scotland and my noble friend Lord Dundee speaks for another part, and I think that, between us, we speak pretty well for Scotland as a whole. Whenever we hear of the promotion, the death or the retirement of a local forestry officer, we always feel that we have lost a friend.

That is what I came to say, but there are two things that I want to suggest to Her Majesty's Government and to my noble friend Lord Radnor. I do not want an answer, and I would crave the indulgence of the noble Earl who is to reply if I do not stay and listen to his answer, because I am only just out of bed after an attack of influenza. The two things are these. When I was a boy and followed the planting policy at my home in the north of Aberdeenshire, we used to have one rule: that when a plantation was felled it was cleared and planted up the very first spring after it had been cleared. We had a theory (I do not know what truth there was in it) that after the first year the roots of the old trees poisoned the young trees, and that if we got the young trees well away in the first year, then the plantation did well.

I do not know what the truth of the theory was, but I know that we always planted successfully in the spring following the felling. To-day it is impossible to do that. On inquiring the reason, I was told it is due to the fact that, whereas in the past we had a fine stock of pheasants, to-day, in the whole of Ross-shire, there is not a cock pheasant to be found. As a result, the pine weevil gets such a hold on the ground that it is necessary to wait five or more years before replanting. The favourite food of the pheasant is the pine weevil, and the only other creature I know which has a care for that particular kind of food is the domestic fowl, which would not last very long if it were kept on a plantation. I do not know whether the absence of pheasants does add from five to seven years to the rent and the interest, and the time, required to produce a fully-grown tree.

There is another thing. I used to have a friend, the late Admiral Arvid Lindman, who was always called the father of Swedish forestry. He told me that we in this country were very backward because we cut trees in swathes, as they did in Germany, but that in Sweden they had abandoned that practice and used to trust largely to natural regeneration, stimulating it wherever they could. He said they always took the trees individually as they arrived at maturity, and that that in itself shortened by about ten years the time required for maturing a tree. I am led to inquire whether we in this country could not do more in the way of natural regeneration. We have an opportunity now, because the rabbit has practically disappeared from large areas. We have a real chance of letting natural regeneration get a good start and a good hold.

Another factor which should make its appeal to everybody who really belongs to the country is this. Anyone who lives in the country and sees where a plantation has been felled—where the trees have been cut and what I call swathed—must always be shocked and horrified, because the effect is completely to alter a large area of land and the whole climate of that land. If you have forests planted and never clear felled, but always taken just as they become ripe, you never radically alter all the little climates which occupy all the little different areas in any well-established wood. Not only is that a humane thing, because it affects all the animals and the beasts that live in the wood, but it has another great advantage—it provides greater security against pests. When you make a violent change in the climate and the conditions that rule over any area of earth you are liable to be exposed to pests. For that reason, and for many others, I should very much like to know, at leisure, whether something in the way of natural regeneration and the diminution of clear felling might not be tried in the future.

5.29 p.m.

THE EARL OF LONSDALE

My Lords, as a farmer and a forester, and also because I have a considerable interest in common land, I am glad to be able to speak in this debate this afternoon. I hope I may make some instructive suggestions towards the general aims of rehabilitating the woodlands of this country after the denudation of the past two wars, and of establishing the 5 million acres of well-managed and productive woodland. I emphasise "well-managed and productive" woodland because, even in this day and age, there is far too much scrubland and unproductive woodland about. Speaking as a private woodland owner, I feel that the Forestry Commission deserve great praise for their magnificent achievements, both as foresters since their inception and in their newer function of having responsibility for the well-being of private woodlands.

In my experience no two foresters are ever able to agree upon the best crop of trees to be grown in a particular location. I believe the reason may be that because a crop of trees takes so long to mature, crop records are often scanty or nonexistent. I make that point because it may be supposed that there would be a tendency on the part of private owners to disagree not only with the theory but also with the practice of the Forestry Commission. But the forestry work of the Commission has been so excellent that there seems no ground for disagreement between private woodland owners and the Commission. The quality of the Commission's work can be seen on any tour round the British Isles. I congratulate them particularly for their research and educational work, which has already been mentioned and which has been of tremendous advantage to private foresters, particularly since the war.

The Commission have fostered a new development, co-operative forestry societies, to which I feel insufficient publicity has been given. These have not made great headway in England, but I believe there is great scope for the Forestry Commission to take a more active part in publicising and actively promoting co-operative forestry societies to assist small woodland owners—those with limited labour resources for planting, thinning, marketing and utilising their timber. The dedication scheme as it now stands seems very satisfactory and, with the grants which go with it, woodland owners should not hesitate to join it. I am surprised that at present only about 12 per cent. have dedicated. I appreciate that there is tremendous delay in preparing plans and having them agreed. It took me two and a half years to get my plan agreed. It may be that the Commission cannot go faster with dedication, but I feel that, with more publicity and better contact with the forestry officers, much more rapid progress could now be made with the dedication scheme. There is still some hesitancy, apparently based either on ignorance or on a certain antipathy towards something which, perhaps, appears to smack of the surrendering of old traditions. I believe that a more energetic "selling" of the scheme by the Commissioners would result in a much more rapid rate of progress.

The private owner could, and should, plant much more substantially than at present. Generally, achievements are up to the target, but I believe that all landowners have some piece of ground, larger or smaller, which is not productive agricultural land and which could be utilised. I believe that a major consideration affecting the rate of afforestation is finance, but in view of the fact that there is at present a Committee considering that subject, I will not dwell upon it. I only hope that the Committee's deliberations will be published relatively soon, so that private foresters can have an idea of what the future is to mean to them.

The question of death duties, of building up an asset for future generations only to find that a large part is removed by death duties, is, of course, a big deterrent; and whilst the taxation relief provisions and the deferment system of paying death duties on timber must naturally help woodland owners, these provisions are extremely difficult to understand. Few people to whom I have talked have known much about the provisions or have understood how they should be put into effect. After some months of hunting I managed to discover a pamphlet on the subject, although my accountants did not even know of it. Although it means giving them a further responsibility, I consider that the Forestry Commission and private woodland officials should make a point of explaining the death duty deferment scheme to woodland owners.

I believe there is little criticism to be offered and great admiration to be expressed for our forestry practice on semi-agricultural ground, both as regards the type of trees and the manner of planting, though I must agree with the noble Earl opposite that the Commission, in their acquisition of land, do not seem to have had sufficient regard for its suitability for tree-growing. Apparently they have such difficulty in finding land that they have had to accept land which others would not have considered for tree planting. I have seen trees planted in the Lake District in exposed positions and at high elevations where they are never likely to grow to any great volume of timber, and planted on hills with such a thin soil covering that they make no progress at all.

From the 1953 Report it seems that so many Forestry Commission woodlands are now reaching the stage of thinning that the Commission have not, perhaps, the facilities and manpower to enable them to keep abreast of the growth within their own forests. I have heard of (but have never seen) woods where in order to save labour in thinning ring barking of trees has been carried out. The situation may grow worse as more young plantations become productive unless the building up of the labour force facilities keeps pace. I believe the time has come for a reassessment of the Commission's policy on acquiring land for afforestation. The Commission have been in the habit of offering no more than 2s. or 2s. 6d. an acre rental on a 999 years' lease, or £6 or £7 an acre for purchase. Nowadays very little land is worth less than 4s. or 5s. an acre rental, or £10 or £12 an acre freehold, due to the post-war value of sheep and, consequently, of any land which can remotely be considered fit for sheep to graze upon, including land which is covered with bracken.

That brings me to the question of how land should be divided up as between forestry and agriculture, and linked with that is the question of commons. The noble and learned Earl opposite made a very impassioned plea for some legislation to deal with these commons. There are many hundreds of thousands of acres of commons covered with bracken. I mention bracken particularly, because the fact that bracken grows denotes that there is some soil, and where bracken grows trees will grow as well. Bracken-covered land is practically useless for sheep grazing once the bracken has got well up. If such land were planted with timber, the bracken could be kept down at the annual cleaning which is proper for any plantation, long enough to allow trees to get away. Subsequently the trees would suppress the bracken.

Then there is the problem of more land that could and should be used. There are large areas of marginal land which have fallen out of cultivation and into disuse through lack of attention—indeed, some of these areas have had no sort of cultivation during the last seventy or eighty years. Much of this land is basically fertile, but too wet to produce anything but coarse grass and rushes. Draining for reclaiming this land could cost as much as £80 an acre, which in many cases is more than the capital value of the land ever could be. Consequently, a tremendous area of this land, although grants are available for draining and reclaiming, would, I believe, never get touched. Therefore I feel it should be put to forestry purposes. If the Forestry Commission were to acquire blocks of land of this type, they could put them to useful purposes, whereas at the moment the land is nothing but an agricultural disgrace. I am speaking of wet and boggy land and bracken-covered common land. I suggest also that the Commission should consider planting in smaller blocks down to 100 acres in extent. We should remember that in very few instances is any one wood in a private woodland more than 100 acres in extent. It would be of great service if these 100 acre blocks were sited more particularly in the more exposed parts; if they were sited as large shelter belts for otherwise exposed land. One knows of many cases where farmers have been able to turn their stock out in the spring as much as a week or two earlier than they normally would, where there is this shelter by belts of woodlands.

I suggest, therefore, that in any future survey or legislation regarding common land (this, I think, is very necessary indeed, and we have had an assurance on behalf of the Government that it will take place in due course) the usefulness for forestry of bracken-infested areas should be borne particularly in mind, and that the Commission should offer something more for land than they are doing at the moment, thus enabling them to acquire this marginal type of land and to put it to good use. In conclusion I should like to reiterate that in all other respects I have nothing but praise to offer and confidence to express in the Forestry Commission and the work which their officers have done.

5.45 p.m.

EARL BATHURST

My Lords, I am sure that all of us will wish to thank the noble and learned Earl who has introduced this Motion to-day and has made possible this most interesting debate in your Lordships' House. I was a little perturbed to hear about his very strong views on planting-up commons. I felt that I ought to write a note to my noble friend, Lord St. Aldwyn, and remind him that, possibly somewhere near Christmas time, I may have to propose his health at an ancient Court Leet dinner over which I expect to have the privilege of presiding in my own manor of North-leach. Supposing the noble Earl who will be replying, and the noble Earl who is chairman of the Forestry Commission, thought anything about planting trees on these people's common—the common of this Court Leet—dire consequences might ensue. I do not think that we now have the right to put people in the stocks, but I can assure the noble Earl that the High Bailiff of the Court is a most skilled carpenter, and a pair of stocks could be knocked up very quickly in the course of the dinner. The noble Earl now tells me that he will not be present.

We shall all look forward to the next Report of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. We shall then possibly be able to hear something about what his price will be for a syndicate for any shooting which he may be able to arrange, after what Lord Saltoun has said with regard to pheasants. I know that all your Lordships would be prepared to make a down payment, if the hire purchase system should operate for such a syndicate. We must congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and his staff, on the excellent Report that is being brought forward for t he year 1953. Stress has already been laid on the good feeling that exists between private owners and all members of the Forestry Commission and their staffs. I can especially endorse this because I had the privilege of being at one of the first landowners' courses held at Northwood House, after the noble Earl had just succeeded to the chairmanship. Certainly the help and assistance given by the Forestry Commission and their staff was very great indeed. No doubt the noble Earl is carrying on the co-operation, and the help will be continued.

For the rest, I regret to say that I am worried, but I feel that I am putting forward the views of a great many woodland owners, especially small woodland owners in the position of the noble Lord opposite, Lord Wise. As a small woodland owner about to dedicate his woods for a somewhat ambitious planting scheme, I feel that we might stop for a moment or two to examine the workings of the Forestry Commission and what it means to a private owner in the future. From a relatively small beginning, the Commission acquired 310,230 acres, most of which was derelict woodlands and other derelict places—moors and mountains—and from that relatively modest beginning a Colossus has now been built up owning 1,909,000 acres. Out of that amazing total, 1,135,060 acres is potentially plantable, and 326,000 acres has been planted. All this is in that admirable Report. As a landowner, surely one might think that 1,900,000 acres is about enough. Surely enough has been acquired for good planting, good management of land, building of horses, and so forth. Would it not be as well to replant on that land before taking on a little bit more? In order to make this impressive total possible, the State has invested £54½ million over a period of thirty-four years. The State has received back £18 million, all of which has been ploughed back into the industry.

How much protection has the private owner against this enormous monopoly? —and I think, whether we are for it or against it, we should call it a monopoly. A very large State-owned and Government-controlled business has been built up, which is competing against the private owner. I am surprised that this has not been mentioned in the debate, especially by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, or by the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch. It seems that the reason why landowners feel apprehensive about the Forestry Commission may be the fact that the Commission are at the same time privileged competitors and controllers of the private owners of woodlands. I hope the Government will be able to do something to alleviate this apprehension, which no doubt exists.

To prove that I have some justification for these fears I would turn to the question of thinnings, which the noble Lord. Lord Wise, mentioned. I view the figures in the Report with rather more apprehension than does the noble Lord. The Report shows that 36,800 acres have been thinned by the Forestry Commission, against approximately 11,000 acres thinned by private owners, of course with the help of the Forestry Act, for which all owners are exceedingly grateful. The Forestry Commission thinnings will become larger progressively every year. Who can tell whether the private owners can keep up their supply of thinnings proportionately to that of the Forestry Commission? That is not a question of keeping up with arrears, about which the noble Earl, Lord Home, talked; it is purely a matter of cash in and cash out in the balance sheet. Thinnings produce 79 per cent. of all the Forestry Commission's saleable products, which come to some 12 million cubic feet. That is a lot of timber. Out of this quantity, 3¼ million cubic feet were sold to the nationalised coal mines, the greatest single user of Forestry Commission produce and consequently the largest single user of thinnings. But the amount of thinnings cut must increase year after year. No doubt the National Coal Board may be prepared to take more, depending on the price of home-grown thinnings, but that is where we private owners come in on this market. I cannot find much help or hope in the Report which the Commission have just issued or from the statements so far of the noble Earl, Lord Home, but we shall hope for a little more clarification, if it is possible, from the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, who is to reply.

The Report shows that the total sales of timber have dropped by £171,988 and at the same time expenditure on producing these timber sales has gone up by £206,430. I know that that figure was not actually given in the Report; it had to be worked out from it. In spite of the fact that expenditure on sales had almost doubled, the cost of supervision—and I suppose of super—supervision—is now £1,080,000. The total cash sales came to £2,300,000. I agree that figures can be twisted to mean almost anything, but, on the face of it, it would appear that for every £1 spent on supervision, there was £2 3s. 7.2d. of sales. But £2,599,000 has been spent on capital improvements—in other words, on cultivations. Even with that figure added, it is £1 of supervision for £4 7s. of actual work accomplished. I wonder how many private owners could carry on like that. I wonder how any business could carry on in that way. I doubt if even diamond or gold mines receive less income for the amount they spend on supervision. Of course, I well know the problems which the Forestry Commission face, with scattered woods and difficult roads, but, even so, I think this is a point which must be put to the taxpayer, who ultimately has to pay for this tremendous development of the country's woodlands.

Should it be the case that this great enterprise is able to do it to the detriment of the private owner?—and I believe that there can be a detriment to the private owner, unless something can be done for him. I do not intend to criticise or appear to be in any way "down" on the Forestry Commission, and especially on the Forestry Commission staff, but I feel so strongly about this matter—and I know that the feeling is shared by so many landowners with small woodlands—that I think attention should be paid to it. I know that at present a Departmental Committee is sitting and that most of these topics will be covered, but all these points have been put forward in your Lordships' House at one time or another and they have been common knowledge to anyone at all interested in the furtherance of our forests and private woodlands. I think there would have been something lacking in this debate initiated by the noble and learned Earl opposite were they not mentioned.

We are selling on a free market and on, at times, a falling market. Here the Forestry Commission and the private woodlands owners are in the same boat. Our expenses are outside our own control. We are tied by wages agreements which are outside the control of the private landowner. There is nothing much that can be done to mechanise forestry in the way every other industry has been mechanised in order to meet the circumstances of selling on a falling market. What can the Forestry Commission do, and what are the Forestry Commission doing, to get over this problem? The private woodland owner cannot do anything because he has not the capital. Many feel that the Forestry Commission are in a position to set up some form of plant. According to the Report, one plant has been set up in Scotland; but it is only one, when we need quite a few of them if thinnings are going to be sold economically. If expenses get out of control, the only recourse the private owner has is to cut down on his planting work and lay off men. If he cannot sell, he has to stop paying and the planting programme goes down—that is what the arrears mean. If the Forestry, Commission are unable to sell, or if their markets become smaller, they are still bolstered by the support of the wealth of the countryside. You cannot get over that, and every private woodland owner knows it. There was £7 million involved in this last year, and it is right and proper that it should be so. But should not the private owner be able to compete on the same terms with the Forestry Commission?

Then, death duties are crippling to an efficiently managed woodland estate. There are great concessions, for which all woodland owners are grateful, but they operate largely only if it is a worthless woodland or one that cannot be realised. If an efficient wood which is growing well has to be cut down for death duty purposes—as is possible by the issue of a special licence—the whole progress of that woodland estate, so far as the woods are concerned, may be brought to naught. Many estates are having to labour under heavy death duties. The Forestry Commission, on the other hand, are able to carry on and go forward as a State institution. That is grossly unfair in these days of competition, which we all, certainly those on this side of the House, wish to see. You can compete, but you do not want to have your hands tied behind you in the course of competition.

As the largest supplier of timber of the soft woods type, the Forestry Commission are able to sell in bulk at advantageous terms to the largest buyers of soft wood timber, most of whom are already nationalised concerns. The National Coal Board, British Railways, the Post Office—the Department of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr—docks, and so forth are the largest users of home-grown soft woods. The Forestry Commission have a unique opportunity to negotiate with their opposite number in these Boards, and they can offer most attractive terms to them and to local authorities which often the private owner is not able to do. I agree that as private woodland owners we have a long way to go in marketing knowledge and techniques; in fact, many of us prefer to take a slightly lower price and let the expert get on with the job. I hope that the Forestry Commission will go all out to help the private woodland owner with his marketing problems. It is not enough to say, as is said on page 9, that sympathetic consideration will be given.

Finally, there is the question of importing high grade timber from abroad. From Soviet Russia, particularly, when it is available, we are able to get the highest quality soft woods of all sorts and a great many hard woods as well. Whether the private woodland owner is able to compete with the standards of growing and the standards of manufacture and of labour which they have in Soviet Russia, your Lordships are best able to judge. Suffice it to say that the average price of a standard of soft wood, unloaded, in 1939, was £13, and to-day that same standard would be valued at £75. Even that price has gone up fairly considerably. Yet, by a freak, by some machinery of the law and the regulations, it has duty of only one half of one per cent. upon the monetary value of that standard of wood. It was not meant to work that way, but that is how it works. Is there not scope at the same time for some sort of protection or support, or whatever one might call it, for the produce of the home grower and of the Forestry Commission?

The noble and teamed Earl opposite suggested that during the war he was the fifth wheel to a carriage. Many of us hope that the Minister will consider appointing someone who can operate in exactly that sort of capacity. He would thus be able to represent at the Ministry the views of private owners in competition with those of the Forestry Commission. It is believed from what was said in another place, where this matter has been raised before, that the Minister may by sympathetic towards that suggestion. Possibly the Minister would consider some sort of committee composed of a landowner, a timber merchant and a Forestry Commissioner—but I do not think that would be satisfactory from the landowner's point of view. I hope that the noble Earl who is to reply will be able to give some idea that consideration will be given to such a proposal on behalf of private woodland owners. The noble and learned Earl said that he was the fifth wheel of a carriage; I can only think that two is company, but three might be rather crowded from the point of view of the Forestry Commissioner, however congenial the third person might be. I hope we may be able to hear something on those lines.

6.8 p.m.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

My Lords, I do not intend to detain you for more than a few minutes, and I enter into this debate with considerable trepidation, being a very amateur forester. I should like to pay tribute to the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who has enabled us to take part in this debate, and in particular I wish to pay tribute to the Forestry Commission for their dealings and relationships with private owners. I am only a small woodland owner and I can speak only on some aspects of the Forestry Commission and private owners. My woodlands are not dedicated, for the simple reason that I do not consider it fair, whether it is legal or not, to bind my heirs to stated tasks when one cannot possibly see what the future holds. I do not think it is fair for a man to bind his heir to undertake operations at an unknown cost, with an unknown return, whether he is able to, or whether he is not. So far as the question of dedicating the land to the growing of trees is concerned, I have no quarrel with that. I understand that Clause 1 of the dedication scheme, as it stands, is the only one that holds water—but if I am wrong about that I shall no doubt be corrected.

On the question of grants, forestry, so far as the private owner is concerned, is a matter of economics: whether he can afford to do it, and whether it is worth his while. The Government recognise this by giving grants for various operations. I think it is worth considering, now that the Forestry Commission have complete control of all forestry operations, whether it is justifiable to withhold half the grant for approved woods just because the owner does not wish to dedicate them. When the scheme came in, his only obligation was to plant timber; and, having done that, he could then do what he liked. But since that date the Forestry Commission can now order him to carry out any operation they like; they can control him at every single step. Therefore, I think it is really worth while considering whether it is justifiable in that particular case to pay only half the grant.

Then there is the shortage of land available to the Forestry Commission: as we have heard, and as we all know, they are not able to buy as much land as they want. I suggest that the problem could be alleviated to some extent if the Forestry Commission would look upon the problem more in the way of acquiring smaller areas and running these smaller areas with a "flying squad" of foresters. There are many places where quite a small shelter belt would be an advantageous thing. A farmer would not object to it, and he would very often lease or feu the land for that purpose, provided that he did not have to run it. While one can say that a woodland of fifty acres is not much good by itself, if you have a large collection of fifty-acre woodlands, say not more than five or six miles apart, they could all be managed quite well by one forestry squad in a truck. I believe that a great deal of land, not necessarily in the possession of the Forestry Commission, could be worked and managed by them in that way.

There is the question of myxomatosis. Whether we like myxomatosis or not, the fact remains that large acres of Scotland are now virtually free of rabbits. I think it is time the lairds "jumped to it," and that this year and next year we should get a large acreage planted. Our chief bugbear in planting has been fencing, and I believe that, since there are no rabbits now, and there will be very few next year, during the next five years we could keep these rabbits in control sufficiently for the plantations to get away. I feel that that aspect could be profitably exploited by the Forestry Commission. In my own case, I am all but surrounded by the Forestry Commission, and they have finished their planting programme. I put my difficulties to them; I explained that I was still tidying up windblows and that all my labour (that sounds grand, but it is three men) was employed on it. The Forestry Commission said, "Yes, we will do what we can." They have agreed to plant under contract and provide the necessary supervision. That has enabled me to do about four years' planting in one fell swoop. If I can do that again next year I shall have got eight years' planting completed. That does not sound much, but, multiplied by several thousand, it amounts to something.

I feel it is time that that kind of project was looked into—large-scale small-scale planting, if your Lordships understand what I mean—even to the extent of possibly diverting plants from their own nurseries and diverting labour. After all is said and done, if a tree is to be grown, from the State's point of view it is not material who grows it, because the cost of the Forestry Commission's trees must be very heavy indeed, and the relative cost of the trees is not so important as to have them growing. I feel that that aspect might be explored rather more.

Then there is the question of the wind-blows. In Scotland, a very large acreage has been devastated, and the problem of replanting and rehabilitating those areas means that one has to wait at least five years, probably six, and even, perhaps, up to seven, before daring even to start. Surely now is the time to make arrangements to have those plants raised from the seed. It takes about three or four years, anyway. Why cannot the Forestry Commission collaborate with private owners on a contract basis? I do not think the relationships between private owners and the Forestry Commission are quite so bad as the noble and learned Earl led me to suppose. They are certainly not in my particular area, and I sincerely trust they will never become bad to that extent.

EARL JOWITT

I did not suggest that the relations between the Forestry Commission and private owners have ever been bad. So far as I know they have always been quite happy.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

I am sorry; I must have misunderstood the noble and learned Earl.

EARL JOWITT

It was the hill sheep people who I said had not much affection for foresters, and I am afraid that is true.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

I am afraid that I must agree with the noble and learned Earl there. Then there is the question of the building of houses by the Forestry Commission. So long as those houses are built where villages already exist, there can, of course, be no criticism. But there is criticism, and has been in the past, of the Forestry Commission's action in building two or three isolated houses, miles up glens, with the result that the county council have to transport the children—and just think of doing it in this sort of weather!—to and from school. They have to provide transport, which is a charge on the ratepayer and not on the Forestry Commission. I think that aspect should be considered carefully when it comes to building houses, because there are two ways of looking at it.

There is one other point I wish to make, and that is the question of the control of the grey squirrel. In Trinidad, a similar squirrel exists, and is a great pest in the coconut plantations. In the year 1951–52 the estimated loss from this source was £50,000. The Trinidad authorities instituted methods of control of the grey squirrel, utilising Warfarin or anticoagulant rat poison; and the estimated loss in the year 1953–54, after this method had been employed, was only £9,000. Surely, that is a step we should investigate fully. I know that there are problems connected with it, but I think we should investigate it rather more fully than anyone has apparently done. The final thing I wish to do is to draw your Lordships' attention to Government Advisory Leaflet No. 58 on the grey squirrel, and point out that some of the advice given in this pamphlet is to shoot with a shotgun into the nest of the grey squirrel. I think that is a most brutal and unworthy suggestion to find in a Government publication. You just tire into the nest, hoping you are going to kill or wound. I think that is a brutal thing, and surely on humanitarian grounds should not stand. I hope that that point may possibly he looked into. It is very late, and I will not delay your Lordships any further.

6.20 p.m.

LORD MONK BRETTON

My Lords, the tradition of forestry in this country has been left to, and well held by, a small number of people. Apart from that, I think the traditional attitude is more one of apathy towards the industry. This was probably brought about by the Industrial Revolution and the better returns that were obtainable in industry, and by the fact that our woodlands are of small size in relation to the population. I would particularly thank the noble and learned Earl, the mover of this motion, for having allowed us to discuss this subject to-day, because it does something to remove from us all in the country the stigma of being apathetic about it. Moreover, I think his words on the dedication scheme, and on taxation and so forth, were very welcome indeed: I am sure they should go a long way to help in the planting of many trees. I trust they will. To put the matter of our apathy into historical perspective a little, Mr. Gladstone used to cut down trees for a hobby, and Lord Randolph Churchill was able to say that he considered this indicative of his essentially destructive tendencies. Since then, we have had two world wars and a slump. It may also be fair to say that during those two wars some of the prices that the timber growers received were not very good. But we have made progress, which I think would suit both Lord Randolph Churchill and Mr. Gladstone, in that we are now trying hard to regard forestry as a crop and, for better or worse, we have, I hope temporarily, felling quotas. We also have the Forestry Commission which has an 800,000-acre forest. It is fairly certain that soon half a million acres of private woodland will be dedicated.

I speak as one who has very few woods indeed, and I feel it is important to say something, because private woodland is now being held in smaller units, owing to the splitting up of estates. I think that, as a matter of business, it is regrettable from the point of view of both forestry and agricultural credit, that that has happened. The first thing I should like to talk about is the dedication scheme. I will go a little further in my comments than is perhaps usual, because I feel that some good may come out of it, since many people have to consider this flatter. There are fifty pages of explanation of the scheme—which is quite a lot to read. It is a complicated business. The scheme is, I believe, being revised. When it was received by woodland owners originally, owing to the political climate of the time, I dare say that it was read with particular care. When one reads the "Outline of the Scheme: General Considerations," one finds that it says: In every case the owner must reach an early decision as to whether he is prepared to proceed with the work of rehabilitation. A little further down it says: Where no satisfactory assurances are forthcoming within a stated period, the State should acquire the land. In quoting those extracts, I am taking them a little out of their context, but I think that some critical person taking up the scheme might well dislike that comment and feel that it looked very much like the "big stick." I think perhaps those words are a little unfortunate.

I have heard the comment that the scheme was suspected of being one which substituted pitfalls for mantraps. I think the slowness of response to it was probably due to the very considerable legal difficulties involved. It is an elaborate affair. I wonder whether, perhaps, the desire to protect public money has gone rather too far, resulting in considerable delays. I hope the Government will not fear some modification which will still adequately protect public money but which will result in a speeding up. I think the responsibility felt by private owners is well shown by their response to the scheme so far.

So far as small estates are concerned, I believe one of the main discouragements to dedication is the owners' anxiety over their inability to keep up the programme agreed with the Commission—I will come back to that aspect in a few moments. There are also the difficulties of supervision and, finally, there is the general comment to be made that it is vitally important to keep up the confidence of people if they are to plant trees. My noble friend Lord Bathurst has said a good deal about the Forestry Commission's relationships with private growers. I think it is as well to remember that the use of the Forestry Commission as a good brother, as well as a "Big Brother," is of vital importance; and the way in which the Commission are used is in the hands of the Government. It could so easily, by default, happen that the Forestry Commission became a competitor of private forestry, and vice versa. It is most important that this should be avoided.

The sawmill venture that is mentioned in the Report of the Commissioners is welcome as a demonstration of cooperation between the Commission and the trade. I very much hope that there will be more indications of such joint ventures, particularly in the sphere of thinnings, which have been adequately and more effectively dealt with than I am capable of doing. I think it is also only right to congratulate the Commission on their intensive training schemes for woodmen: they have done, and will do, much good. While on the subject of thinnings, I would ask the noble Earl who is to reply whether he can give any information on the Forestry Commission Pitwood Working Party. A Question was asked about it in another place in July, 1954, and so far no further announcement has been made about it. It may be that the Government will be able to report on the situation by now.

As pointers for future policy, I think that co-operation among smaller woodland owners is most important, and I feel it right to seize this opportunity to stress the importance of its adoption by all owners who can see their way to do it, because I think it will give them service—a means of physically getting the job done—and it will also bring them easier advice on growing and selling, the two vital subjects upon which they so often fall down. I think that for certain operations co-operation may be better than private contracting, and that a judicious mixture of the two—the co-operative may not need to be very large—may bring satisfactory results. As your Lordships will no doubt know, there are already successful movements of the kind in Wales.

The smaller woods are, of course, a great problem, and I wonder whether the Commission are taking as much interest as they should in small woods. On the whole, it seems fairly obvious that now the vital thing is to plant trees, and probably first to plant them in the places where planting is easiest. Something will have to be done with these small woods. It does not pay to clear them. The longer they are left the more difficult they become to deal with, and that may have an unfortunate effect on the owners. I think that where the woodlands are held by owner-occupying farmers, or some such people, at some stage it might be well worth the while of the Minister and the Commission to consider whether they can produce a scheme for direct contracting by the Commission and the making of loans over the period of rotation to those kind of people. I believe that something on those lines has been done in France, and that when such a scheme was introduced there it was found to be the one thing that created a big demand and got things moving. All I need to say further is that I hope we shall all live to see plenty of trees and a prosperous woodland industry.

6.33 p.m.

LORD KINNAIRD

My Lords, I am glad to add my voice of congratulation to my noble friend Lord Radnor, to the directors who work with him and to his staff, on the Report that they have put out. I was most interested when the noble and learned Earl said at the beginning of our discussion that we had not had a debate on this subject for many years. I hope he will see that that does not happen again, because surely it is a matter of great interest when we hear our experts speaking on this subject. I think we should have a debate at least once a year, when the Commission makes its Report. I hope that in future there will not be this long gap. I should like also to add a word of congratulation to all the national committees, to the Regional Advisory Committee and to the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee. The appointments that have been made to those Committees are excellent, and we thank all the members for the work that they do. They give up a large portion of their time, and a debate once a year would present an opportunity to express our gratitude to them.

I do not wish to go into detail, but I would just mention that the additional grants in regard to approved woodlands, to the clearance of scrubs and particularly lo the co-operative societies, are excellent. I should like to mention the windblow in Scotland, and to say how much we appreciate the fact that my noble, friend Lord Radnor and his staff have personally been able to come so often to visit us. If your Lordships will look at pages 13 and 14 of the Report you will see what a lot they have done towards helping to remedy that difficult situation, And we in Scotland are most grateful to, them.

The only other point I wanted to make was one made by the noble and learned Earl, about the shortage of planting by private woodland owners. This point has been touched upon by Lord Stonehaven. It has been brought to my notice that a large number of factors in Scotland hold the view that the dedication scheme will achieve much in the provision of home grown timber, but that non-dedicated woodlands, operated on schemes approved by the Forestry Commission, should receive the same grants for planting as those received by dedicated woodlands. It is said that the approved grants should be the same as the grants for dedicated woodlands. That is not my opinion, but it is the opinion of a large number of factors in Scotland who advise private owners, and particularly small private owners. I think it is most important that we should have a considered reply to that suggestion, telling us what the Government's idea is with regard to it.

From that statement there is no doubt that they are dissatisfied at the difference between dedication and the approved grant. As to the approved grant, as Lord Stonehaven has pointed out, owners are liable to directives with regard to felling, directives with regard to thinning, directives with regard to planting; they cannot get a licence to fell unless they undertake to replant. The dedication scheme has always been unpopular, I think for the reasons that Lord Stonehaven gave. We do not like to tie up our heirs for all time. That unpopularity has been justified by the fact that it has been found that some of the most important clauses are illegal. That matter is referred to in the Report, and hope is expressed that a satisfactory solution has been arrived at.

I could not quite understand the noble Earl, Lord Home, when he said that the solution had been agreed to and accepted by the bodies who advise landowners. Well, it has been agreed that these clauses are not binding; there is no difficulty in accepting that. No doubt in the next Report we shall see that the dedication clauses are not binding on the next heir or the new purchaser. The sort of argument that is moving my friends, the factors, is that there is now little difference between the person who is dedicated and the person who has entered into an approved scheme. That being so, is this great difference—50 per cent. of the grant, and no maintenance grant at all to help them—justified? As there is that feeling, this question requires a definite answer. I have brought it up to-day because I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity of telling us the Government's opinion in regard to the view that I have quoted.

THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, my noble friend is going to deal with this matter, but as the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, has quoted what I said, I would point out that I did say that the new arrangements for dedication have been accepted by the United Kingdom Forestry Committee. That obviously does not commit all landowners, but a representative body has accepted the arrangement.

LORD KINNAIRD

And by Scottish landowners. But it is still not binding on the next generation.

THE EARL OF HOME

I did not say that it was.

6.40 p.m.

LORD HYLTON

My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend, Lord Kinnaird, in the matter of dedication and approved schemes. Though I do not wish to re-cover ground at this late hour, I believe there is a good case for more generous treatment of owners having woods operated under an approved scheme. The difference between these schemes is now so small that in my opinion the grant should apply equally. I believe there is also a case for making a grant to any person who plants trees. This forestry debate is based wholly on the benefit which trees confer on the community, and a man who plants trees, whether dedicated or under an approved scheme or not, does the same amount of work and spends the same money. This is only a matter of words. If a man plants trees and his scheme is inspected by the Forestry Commission, surely that should be sufficient to enable a grant to be payable.

The noble and learned Earl remarked on the shortage of land. I believe the Commission will acquire more land if they will pay a better price. Prices vary, and there is some very bad land, but if the Commission are a little more generous, then I am convinced that they will be able to buy land. I am convinced also that the rental payment for land on 999 years' lease is too low. It is no good saying that 2s. 6d. an acre is a reasonable price today. Even 3s. 6d. is much too low. The value of money has changed, and the Forestry Commission and the Treasury must change their prices in accordance with the changed value of money. I believe that another factor operating adversely to forestry at present is that there is no recompense in the grants for the increase in wages, which of course sharply affects the private owner carrying out forestry. I believe there might be a future for these thinnings, in disposing of which the Forestry Commission and private landowners have difficulty, if arrangements were made for the pulping of such forestry produce. I can give one example. Thinnings from my own woods in the county of Somerset are taken by a timber merchant to the county of Kent to be pulped. I believe that to be the nearest pulping factory in the South of England. There appears to be a suitable opportunity here, perhaps, for the Forestry Commission to put up a pulping plant, or for the industry in general to have a series of pulping plants distributed all over the country but particularly in Scotland, which is a great source of these thinnings.

Finally, I believe many noble Lords were shocked when the noble and learned Earl whose Motion is on the Order Paper commended to your Lordships restrictions on the commons in this country. Our commons are, to a great extent, the playgrounds of the people, and anything that reduces their value as open spaces and playgrounds (whether the public have a legal right or merely right of access) is surely wrong. The late Minister of Town and Country Planning is sitting opposite to me at this moment, and is to speak. One of his greatest difficulties was to provide open spaces for the urban population of this country. He was the father of the National Parks Act. What is that except an Act to provide more open spaces for the recreation of the public? Here we have a proposition to decrease public access to these commons. Whether commons are productive, whether there is the possibility of making them more productive agriculturally or whether there is the possibility of growing trees upon them, I do not believe it is right that it should be said in this House that the public should be restricted in the access that they have had to these commons for so many hundreds of years.

6.46 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, the thirteenth speaker in a debate of this kind, in which so many people well-informed on the subject have spoken, can hardly be expected to introduce anything new. I should have preferred to be the fifteenth speaker, because there are two noble Lords in this House at present who know more about the subject than anybody else, and who have had to sit and listen to criticisms while being unable to speak for themselves. I am sure the House would have welcomed the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, both of whom take a most active part in the, work of the Forestry Commission. I have been wondering what the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, would have said, if he could, about some of the observations of the noble Lords on his side of the House concerning the work of the Commission; but perhaps we may hear of that on some other occasion. This debate has been remarkable in that every single statement of fact put forward by my noble and learned friend has been accepted as true on all sides of the House, and particularly—and may I say very fairly—by the noble Earl, Lord Home, who has spoken for Her Majesty's Government. There has been no challenge on any of the facts put forward by my noble and learned friend—not even with the quotation from the speech, in his unregenerate days, of the noble Earl. We start this discussion. therefore, on the basis of agreed facts and with very little controversy arising from those facts.

Broadly, from a strategic, economic and social point of view, forestry has a great and essential contribution to make to our national life. For that reason, certain targets were laid down, admittedly during the war, but those targets have to a considerable degree been attained. I do not think that my noble and learned friend—and certainly not I myself—would wish to criticise the extent to which this target has not so far been attained. In all the circumstances I feel that my noble friend was perfectly right in drawing, we always aimed at replacing every prevented the full attainment of this target. We all agree that on the whole we have not done too badly, but the fact remains that we are falling short of the target; and in the view of many of us we are falling short of what is required. In the days when I, unfortunately, was responsible for felling a certain number of trees in London, in the interest of housing, we always aimed at replacing every tree we felled by at least two others. I believe that, by and large, we have done that. But I think we have fallen short of that target with regard to the trees that were felled during the two wars, and it will be many years before we are back to the position which existed in 1914, and that is the least that we ought to aim at. I think that so far we have been in complete agreement. It is not profitable to try to go back to see why we have fallen short, except we do so in order to profit for the future from the lessons we may learn.

It seems to me that two main factors have emerged. One is that there is competition for the use of land. There invariably is in this island, because we are overcrowded, and our needs are great. There is competition between agriculture and forestry—this is a matter with which Lord Hylton, who is so greatly interested in town planning, is familiar. There is a constant conflict for the use of land. That is one problem. I believe there is a good deal of misconception about the respective values of land for agriculture and for forestry. It is assumed that use for agriculture is inevitably the most profitable use of land, and that only where agriculture is not practicable can land be used for forestry. I feel that, if only this question could be looked at objectively in each case, it would be found that more land was available for forestry than has generally been accepted to be the case in the past. As I say, what is needed is this objective approach, without prejudice—for there is a good deal of prejudice. There is this prejudice that I have mentioned with regard to agricultural land. It is assumed that not one single acre of land at present used for agriculture should be touched; that it is inviolable and sacred, however unproductive and however lacking in real value that land may be. I think we ought to try to look at this matter with unprejudiced eyes.

The other factor is this question of the acquisition of land. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, and other noble Lords also, took the view that the Forestry Commission were not willing to pay an adequate price for land which they desired to purchase or to rent. There is machinery in this country for settling what is a fair price, and my one criticism of the Commission is that they have been reluctant to use that machinery. They have been far too dependent upon buying by agreement. I am all in favour of buying by agreement. No-one on this side of the House would wish to use the machinery of compulsory purchase if it is possible to buy on reasonable terms by agreement. We do not want compulsory purchase for the sake of compulsory purchase. I wish to make that abundantly clear. But in view of the great need for land, surely the question of a dispute on price ought not to stand in the way of acquiring land which is apparently in every way suitable for the purpose in view. And if there is a disagreement on the price why can it not be referred to the district valuer to settle? The only way to do that, of course, is to have a compulsory purchase order. I think that the Commission have laid themselves open to some criticism in the past, on the ground that they have been too reluctant to use the machinery of compulsory purchase, even where it is manifestly in the public interest to do so.

A good deal has been said in this debate about dedication and the incen- tives which owners need to persuade them to dedicate their land or to conform to the requirements of the Commission. I agree to a considerable extent with what has been said, but one point has been overlooked—and I hope that it is a fair point to put. Woodland which has been well maintained appreciates in value year by year, and any prudent landowner who looks after his woodland has, as the years go by, an increasing asset. If he should be desirous of selling, his woodland becomes more and more valuable; and, for what it is worth, it is capital appreciation. That is a fact which I think owners sometimes overlook. They overlook the advantage which they can gain from that point of view by looking after their woodlands.

I was a little amused by Lord Bathurst's apparent criticism of the Forestry Commission for making a profit. He appeared to think that it was wrong that they should be making profits by selling timber to a nationalised undertaking in unfair competition with the private woodland owner. It is certainly not wrong that these two nationalised undertakings should get together in the public interest, and that the one should get timber at a favourable price and the other should be making a profit.

EARL BATHURST

I think there has been a little misunderstanding of what I said. What I meant was that the Forestry Commission are in a position to be able to sell at a lower price, maybe making a profit or maybe not. If they do make a profit, all credit to the noble Lord opposite and to the Commissioners. But they are in a position to sell at a lower price than the private grower—again whether making a profit or not. The private grower sometimes is not able to sell at an economic price, as compared with that charged by the Commissioners. That was the point which I tried to make.

LORD SILKIN

We will not embark on an ideological discussion. But it is not a question of unfair competition, which I rather inferred was the point the noble Earl was making. In fact, it is one of those cases where a nationalised undertaking is actually subsidising a private undertaking. However, whatever the position may be, I do not want to discuss it at length now. The fact is that there is no alternative to the Forestry Commission to-day. I think the House will agree that the Commission provide the only means by which we can achieve the objects we have in mind.

There have been one or two criticisms. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and I imagine, by inference, the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, criticised my noble and learned friend's statements about common land. Here again, it is essential that we should clear our minds of prejudice. Nobody is suggesting that one inch of playground should be taken from the people, or that they should be deprived of any land that is used for recreational purposes.

LORD HYLTON

My Lords, the noble Lord says that no land will be taken which is used for public recreation, but all commons that I know in the South of England are used for public recreation.

LORD SILKIN

If the noble Lord would do me the honour of spending a Saturday afternoon with me, when the weather improves, I can take him to a good deal of common land which is certainly not used, and is incapable of being used, for recreational purposes. Be that as it may, if the noble Lord be right, and if there be no land which is capable of use for recreational purposes, the point does not arise. Nobody wants to interfere with recreational land and nobody wants to deprive the public of the use of such land—so we are in agreement.

LORD HYLTON

I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying the matter.

LORD SILKIN

What we are talking about is land which is not capable of any beneficial use. There may be differences of opinion about the acreage of that land. It may be something of the order of 2½ million acres or it may be only half a million acres. I do not think my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt was dogmatic about the amount of it: he rested his case on what the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, had said. But nobody wishes to be dogmatic about it. Let us find out. So far as I know, there never has been a factual investigation of the matter and the very fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, can say that there is no such land, when I know within my own knowledge that there is a good deal of it not far from me, is an indication of the need for a factual inquiry. What my noble and learned friend was really asking for was that this matter should he investigated.

If it be the truth, or anywhere near the truth, that there are something like 2½ million acres of land in this country which are not being properly used, either for common purposes or for recreational purposes, or any other purposes, then it really is a scandal. We cal not afford it and ought to look into it. If that is the case, the sooner we know the truth and disabuse our minds, the better. Therefore, I hope that one of the things that may come out of this debate will be some inquiry, first of all into the facts. Then, on the assumption that my noble and learned friend is even approximately right, we should get some policy on the basis of those facts.

The last point I want to make is on the use of the Forestry 1951—I gave the noble Earl some notice of this. I have an impression—perhaps a little more than an impression—that this Act is not being wholly implemented. Owners are felling trees, and not merely thinning, without applying for licences and in contravention of the Act Obviously, it is not possible for any one individual to make definite assertions of that kind, but one goes round and sees substantial areas of woodland being cut down completely, and one wonders whether, in all these cases, licences have been obtained. I notice that in the year under review some 8,000 licences were given and about 400 were refused, so obviously the Forestry Commission are fairly generous in giving licences—and no doubt they are right in so doing. But in some of the cases myself have seen (I hope the noble Earl will not ask me to tell him where they are, because I have certainly no desire to be a detective in the service of the Forestry Commission; it is their job to find these things out for themselves) I cannot believe that the Commission have given a wholesale licence for a substantial area of woodland to be felled.

Therefore, I should like to know whether the noble Earl considers that the facilities for finding out what is going on as regards tree felling are satisfactory and adequate, or whether he does not feel that more can be done in ascertaining what is happening and in finding out whether there is any substantial contravention of the Act. I know that in the case of some properties with large estates that are for sale, the estate agents freely say that the woodland has a value for felling, and they state quite openly that that is to be taken into account in valuing the land, whereas they must know that felling can be done only by licence and that there is no guarantee that it will be permitted.

I am sure that the whole House, such as is left of it, will agree that we have had a most valuable debate, and we are greatly indebted to my noble and learned friend, not only for introducing the debate, but also for being able to do so in such a manner that the great many facts he has put forward could not be controverted. I very much hope that the outcome of this debate will be a substantial improvement in the position of the forestry industry in this country, and that the suggestions which have been made this evening will be taken seriously into consideration.

7.8 p.m.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

My Lords, the hour is late, but I think the number of speakers who have taken part in this afternoon's debate is ample proof of the keen interest which the House takes in forestry policy. We have not had a debate on this subject for a very considerable time, as the noble and learned Earl opposite said, and I think we must be extremely grateful to Lord Jowitt for having given us the opportunity to discuss the subject. The debate has, I am glad to say, confirmed that in forestry as in agriculture there is a large measure of agreement on the broad lines of policy. We all regret that it has not been possible to make faster progress with afforestation, and we all appreciate the difficulties which face private owners and the Commission. The private owners, we are agreed, tend to be apprehensive about their market, and the Commission have difficulty in finding the land to plant. My noble friend has already explained the Government's attitude on these two problems. It now only remains for me to answer as many as I can of the numerous questions which have been asked this afternoon.

The noble and learned Earl who moved the Motion mentioned the reduction in the Commission's expenditure on housing, and this subject was also touched upon by my noble friend Lord Stone-haven. Like all other public bodies which get their funds from the Exchequer, the Commission have had to make their contribution to keeping public expenditure down to the minimum. The Commission have quite rightly decided not to cut their operational work—that is to say, the planting of new forests and the maintenance of existing ones—except to the extent that they are forced to do so by the shortage of land. They have instead postponed work, including the building of houses, which is ancillary to their main task.

In this they have had a great deal of help from the local authorities, who have been most willing to provide houses for foresters and forest workers as part of the general housing programme. This leaves the Commission free to devote their attention mainly to building houses in strategic positions—for example, for a forester or one or two workers in a spot where the local authority would not want to build but where it is essential for the protection of the forest from fire to have people on the spot. I think that is the point about which my noble friend Lord Stonehaven was complaining, but it is essential that there should be these isolated cottages. The Commission have also been able to concentrate on gradually extending the forest villages which they have established.

I accept wholeheartedly the noble Earl's suggestion that these villages should be equipped as soon as possible with schools, churches, village halls and so forth. The Commission's policy is to provide sites for buildings of this kind wherever they can, although I think the noble Earl would agree that it is really the function of the inhabitants of the village to look after their own amenities. The Commission are always in close contact with the education and religious authorities, to whom they give all the help they can in catering for these new developments, and wherever practicable they do themselves provide a temporary building for use as a village hall.

It naturally takes time for a new community of this kind to become established, and it is the Commissioners' policy to concentrate new housing on existing villages wherever that is possible. This is normally cheaper, and I believe it is also socially desirable to attach new housing to existing communities where the basic services already exist and normally the people who live there have many different jobs to do. I would stress the point that wherever possible the Commission are building on existing villages. One hears of complaints that in the purely forest village the conversation is purely forestry, and people get a little bored with it. There is a great deal to be said for having one or two other subjects to discuss.

The exceptions where this policy cannot be followed are, first, where, as I have said, houses have to be built deliberately in isolated spots so that people can be on hand to look after the forest, and secondly, where complete new forests have been created and the houses needed for them cannot be joined to existing villages. There are good examples of this sort of thing on Loch Awe Side in Scotland and at Kidder and Thetford in England.

The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, also asked whether, when a felling licence was granted or conditions were attached to a licence, proper consideration was given to the amenities which the trees provided. They might be of special historical interest, or the felling of them might detract seriously from the beauty of the countryside. I can assure him that full account is taken of these considerations. Under Section 28 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, tree preservation orders are made by local planning authorities. These orders, when confirmed by the appropriate Minister, provide that the trees to which they refer must not be felled without the consent of the local planning authority. The Forestry Act, 1951, provides that before issuing a licence to fell trees which are covered by a tree preservation order the Commission must either consult the local planning authority or pass on the application to the planning authority to be dealt with by them. If there is disagreement between the Commission and the planning authority the matter is referred to the appropriate Minister.

But that is not the only safeguard. The 1951 Act also provides that the Commission may themselves have regard to "the amenities of the district" when deciding whether or not to grant a licence or whether or not to attach conditions to a licence. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Commission have agreed on certain categories of cases in which the planning authority will always be consulted. I do not think the noble Earl would wish me to go into detail about these administrative arrangements, but I can assure him that they are, quite adequate to ensure that full account will be taken of the amenity considerations. It would be wrong of the Forestry Commission to neglect them and they must, of course, consult with the planning authorities, who have statutory responsibilities in these matters.

The noble and learned Earl also asked me about Welshmen in the Commission's, service in Wales. It is true that a fairly large number of the Commission's officers and foresters in. Wales are not Welsh. This is not because of any reluctance on the part of the Commission to employ Welshmen. They would be very glad if more Welshmen would come forward, both to the universities (from which forest officers are recruited) and to the forester training schools which the Commission have established to recruit foresters. The explanation may be that the Principality has not the long tradition of forestry which England and Scotland both enjoy. The percentage of Welshmen admitted to the University College of North Wales, for the Degree course in Forestry since the end of the war has been only 15 per cent. The number of Welshmen now in the Commission's Gwydyr Forester Training School is only 19 out of a total of 65 men in training. The percentage of Welsh-speaking men is even lower—3.7 per cent. of the admissions to the University and only 7 out of 65 in the Forester Training School. The Commission are not at all happy about this situation, which is helpful neither to them nor to the cause of forestry in Wales; but although they have tried hard they have not so far been able to increase the number of the right type of Welshmen coming into the industry.

The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked several questions, and I appreciate that he had to leave the House earlier. He asked me what was the total area planted last year, as compared with that for the year before. As your Lordships will have seen from the Report, the figure in 1953 was 67,600 acres, and the figure for 1954 is something over 70,000 acres. The noble Lord also asked me about housing. I am afraid I cannot give him any details, but progress is reasonably satisfactory. He further queried whether smallholdings on the forestry estates were being reduced. The answer is that they are not; they are remaining more or less static. The noble Lord also raised the question of the large figure shown against arable agricultural and unplantable land. That section of the Commission's property is continually being reviewed, and as each new development in planting comes along more land is brought out of that category.

The noble Lord then raised the question of the selling by the Commission of their thinnings standing. First, the Commission's main job is to grow timber. They feel that if they can encourage the home timber trade by giving them work in the form of cutting and carting these thinnings, they are helping; and of course it does mean that the Commission employees themselves are not wasting time when they could be getting on with their planting elsewhere. My noble friend Lord Lonsdale touched on one or two matters, particularly commons, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned. I wish I could be a little more helpful to the noble Earl opposite. He likened it to the arrival of a child, but he must realise that there are premature births and also late ones, and I hope we shall be able to put this matter in the latter category. The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, raised the question of the difficulties of private owners in competing with the Forestry Commission. I feel that this position has been rather exaggerated. By and large, it is much more a question of the Commission and the private forester going along hand in hand and competing with the importations—and the more we see of that co-operation the better. There obviously are problems in marketing, otherwise we should not have set up this Committee presided over by Mr. Watson, and no doubt we shall get some useful information from that Committee.

The noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, rightly stressed the problem of shelter belts, and the Commission are prepared to pay grants where the timber production can be regarded as a primary objective although the provision of shelter may also be important. I realise that it is often difficult to achieve much in the way of timber production in a very narrow belt which may be particularly useful for shelter. The main justification for belts of this kind is their agricultural usefulness, and on that score grants can be had under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts, provided, of course, they are included in the approved scheme. The Forestry Commissioners naturally do not regard it as part of their function to plant trees with the sole or primary object of improving shelter for agriculture. Nevertheless, they are extremely conscious of the possibility of arranging their planting so that, while the primary object remains the production of timber, the maximum shelter is also provided. Normally, they would do this by planting blocks rather than belts, but the principle remains the same.

The noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, I think, was quoting from the old dedication scheme, which is somewhat out of date now. Although I have not the new one here, I think he will find it is somewhat different upon the points which he quoted. He also raised the question of the Pitwood Working Party, and why there had not been any Report. I am afraid the answer is that they have completed their work, but their findings were not conclusive enough to be of sufficient value to publish. My noble friend Lord Kinnaird and the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, asked whether the grant for approved woodlands could be made the same as that for the dedication scheme. The approved woodland scheme was put forward by the United Kingdom Forestry Committee on the basis that it was not a substitute for dedication but was merely meant to provide for the owner who, while he was prepared to manage his woods efficiently, did not feel that he could commit his heirs or successors forever.

For this reason the Committee proposed, and the Commission agreed, that the rates of planting grants should be half the rate under the dedication scheme and that there should be no maintenance grant. I think the difference between the two rates is fully justified by the fact that dedication gives the State a perpetual guarantee that the woods will not be used otherwise than to produce timber, and also the fact that a man who has dedicated is tied, anyhow for his lifetime, whereas the man who is under an approved scheme can walk out when he likes. Perhaps I should explain that, as regards the dedication scheme, it will now be made clear that an owner's heirs and successors will not be committed forever to positive action. The only obligation placed on them will be the negative one of not using the woods otherwise than for timber production.

The noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, also suggested that the revised legal documents for use in dedication schemes were not acceptable to woodland owners in Scotland.

LORD KINNAIRD

I did not mean to say that.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I am sorry. I understand that it is acceptable, in fact, by the Scottish owners, but the noble Lord says not by their factors.

LORD KINNAIRD

Yes, I fully agree.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the question of higher payments by the Forestry Commission for their land. The average figure in the Report is admittedly extremely low, but I think one must bear in mind that a high percentage of the land is of the poorest quality, and is not worth any more. The noble Lord also raised the question of alteration in the rate of grant where there is an alteration in the landlord's expenses. I would point out to him that landlords' representatives can approach the Commission for revision of the rate of grant at five-yearly intervals.

The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised the question of the evasion of the felling licence. Frankly, I was surprised that the noble Lord should feel that there is widespread evasion of these felling licences. This apparently is not what the Forestry Commission themselves have found. They investigate all reports of the alleged illegal felling, and wherever there has been adequate prima facie evidence they have instituted proceedings. I would remind the noble Lord that the Act provides that certain classes of felling do not require a licence, and it may be that the cases to which he referred are of this kind. In particular, an exception is made for the felling, by a landlord or tenant, of up to 825 cubic feet of timber—in other words, about twenty-five fully grown trees—every quarter, on condition that not more than 150 cubic feet are sold. The object of this exception is to permit owners to fell reasonable supplies of timber for their own use. The noble Lord said that he did not wish to give me any cases which had come to his notice, but I must point out that it would obviously be of great advantage to the Commission if any information which the noble Lord felt that they should have could be brought to their notice.

I am sure my noble friend was right in stressing that it is easy to make too much of the alleged friction between agriculture and forestry. They are, as he said, two national needs, neither of which must be neglected and both of which are important. They must be developed side by side. Those who say that that is not possible are following much the same sort of argument as those who have said that food and agriculture cannot successfully be combined under the same Minister. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food, on whose behalf I am speaking to-day, has already done much to show that, food, agriculture, fisheries and forestry are all well within his capabilities. I know that he takes a keen personal interest in forestry matters and finds no difficulty in balancing his responsibilities in that sphere with his agricultural responsibilities.

I am not the Parliamentary Secretary for forestry, but it is precisely because agriculture and forestry work together that I am closely concerned with the problems that we have been discussing this afternoon. We are fortunate that a Member of your Lordships' House has been given quite special responsibility for forestry. In my work on the agricultural side, I come frequently into contact with him, and I can assure the House that we are far from coming to blows. My right honourable friend would, I know, wish me to pay a special tribute to the excellent work which the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has done and is doing. I am sure the House would agree with me that the work of the Forestry Commission could not be in better hands.

7.31 p.m.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, I should like just to say how grateful I am to all the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and particularly to the two noble Lords who have answered for the Government—to the noble Earl, Lord Home, for his wide survey and to the noble Earl who has just spoken for the painstaking and courteous way in which he has replied to every single question put in the course of the debate. I am most indebted to both of them. As the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, has said, I hope that we shall have these forestry debates more often in the future, without these long gaps in between, because I think that to-day's debate has been of the greatest value. As a result of this debate, I hope that more trees will be planted, that more land will become available, that the lion of the sheep farmer will lie down with the lamb of the forester, that all these difficulties will be smoothed over and that in the course of time the long-delayed accouchement will be satisfactorily brought about. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.