FORESTRY IN WALES

HL Deb 18 July 1956 vol 198 cc1206-53

3.7 p.m.

LORD OGMORE rose to call attention to the necessity for an extension of forestry in Wales, with particular reference to the utilisation of land now unused or insufficiently used, and to rural depopulation and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a singularly happy and fortunate occurrence that this debate, which has had singular vicissitudes—the Motion has been on and off the Order Paper a number of times, and has been pushed here and there—is at last to take place in your Lordships' House on possibly the best day which could be chosen—in other words, only two days after the Report (Cmd. 9809), has been issued by the Government on the Recommendations of the, Mid-Wales Investigation. This Problem may be summarised as in paragraph 5 of the White Paper Rural Wales (Cmd. 9104) published in 1953. This paragraph says: The rural areas of Wales, particularly of mid-Wales, are steadily losing population. Migration has resulted in severe losses over the past seventy to one hundred years; and this trend has continued, though less sharply, even of recent years, despite the increasing prosperity of agriculture. Over the past twenty years the drift of population from the country to the towns has not been so great in most English rural districts as in the Welsh. Indeed, in a few English rural districts the trend has been reversed. This has not happened to anything like the same extent in Wales.

The loss of rural population to which the White Paper refers is a loss not only to agriculture itself but also to the social and cultural aspects of life in Wales. In fact, quite often the drift is not to Welsh towns but to English towns. Thus there is constant impoverishment of Welsh life in Wales.

May I pause here to say that while I am very pleased that the reply to this debate is to be given by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (and we all look forward with interest to that reply). I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary from the Ministry of Welsh Affairs is not also replying. It is not his fault, of course; it is the ridiculous system whereby the Welsh Ministry has no executive authority in Wales. It is particularly regrettable because, according to the White Paper now issued, he is going to take quite a big part in the future of this subject in Wales. We should have liked to hear Lord Mancroft, who has lately had experience denied to his predecessors.

The problem I have mentioned has been explored lately—first, in a report by the Rural Development Panel of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire in 1950, included by the Council in its First Memorandum (Cmd. 8060); then, in a second report of the Panel, included by the Council in its Second Memorandum (Cmd. 8844), and thirdly, in the White Paper to which I have already referred—the White Paper entitled Rural Wales. The White Paper published in 1953, summarising the Panel's reports, stated that agriculture is the main industry of rural Wales. That is what one might call a self-evident proposition. It also stated that many of the farms were small; that farmers experienced great difficulty of getting out of the land the most of which it was capable, and even of making sufficient use of the Government grants available; and that much of the farming was economically vulnerable and had to be conducted against heavy odds. The White Paper also said that the only other important industry was forestry, but that this was on a small scale. The Government and the Panel agreed that it was necessary to establish a stable rural economy and safeguard the position of the agricultural industry, and, at the same time, to secure full development of the resources of the rural areas, so that more people could obtain a reasonable standard of living in them and enjoy a full social life.

For these purposes, among other desirable objects, was included the accommodation of forestry in partnership with agriculture in suitable areas.

The Government said that they would undertake a steadily expanding programme of afforestation in the rural areas of Wales, and would be prepared to invest increased sums of money in these areas for this purpose. The White Paper also gave a most interesting illustration —one which should be better known in Wales and elsewhere—showing that on the high ground in Central Wales 100,000 acres might be expected to find employment for, at most, 400 men, whilst an afforestation scheme over 100,000 acres and twenty-five years would provide employment at the outset for 400 men, though that number would rise steadily until eventually it reached some 1,200 men, excluding those in industries ancillary to forestry.

With this problem in mind, especially in the worst hit area—namely, Central Wales—the Government asked the Welsh Sub-Commission of the Agricultural Land Commission to carry out an investigation. They did so, and their Report was published in December last (Cmd. 9631). That is the Report on which the Government have now commented. Their area of investigation was the belt of upland country across the waistline of Wales—that is, so to speak, the midriff of Wales—from the Mynydd Bach area, five miles from the coast of Cardigan Bay, to the valley of the River Teme in Radnorshire. I commend this Report to your Lordships who have not read it. It shows how, traditionally, the rural Welsh did not live in towns or villages but in scattered homesteads, and carried on a pastoral system of farming giving rise to a scattered form of human settlement. For this reason the rural Welshman's loyalties were local. He lived, and often still lives, in rural isolation, anchored to his own hearth. His leisure hours in art and song were limited to what the narrow social circle could render possible—hence verse, vocal music, wood carving, knitting and spinning, and various other activities which we associate with the Welsh.

Anyone who drives from Radnorshire across the part of Wales about which I am talking is immediately struck, on entering Wales, by the entirely different look of the country, a difference which cannot be accounted for by the fact that he has moved a few miles from one part to another. There is a significant change. On one side of the Border there are the villages, clustering round the manor and church, and just over the Border, few villages—and where there are villages they look as if they have been put down in a hurry (as they probably were), and are not settled villages of the type we know in England. To-day, says the Report, remoteness and isolation still govern the lives of the Welsh hill countryman, but are not as readily acceptable. So, too, the impact of the outside world has affected him. What sufficed in the old days of railway and horse—namely, a rough track—now has to be a motor road to his farm, to serve as an artery for motor traffic which is the medium for social and commercial activity in the countryside. Indeed, says the Report, the possession of a motor car is becoming a necessity for the farmer, and with it the activities of rural Wales are increasingly based on the village instead of on the hearth—that is, of the hearth of the farm or the cottage.

The Report gives a table showing that in the area under review 782 derelict farm holdings were counted—a significant figure in this comparatively small area of land. Some of these holdings were abandoned many years ago, but even during the last five years 59 were abandoned. The Report found that the great majority of agricultural units in the reference area were unstable due to economic "marginality" (their word, not mine), arising in varying degrees from inadequate size, lack of services, particularly roads, and remoteness from a community. They recommended, among other suggestions, the development of afforestation, properly integrated with agriculture, so as to strengthen the social and economic fabric of the countryside and assist materially in the rehabilitation of the upland areas.

The Report of Government action for the year ended June 30, 1955 (Cmd. 9592), is, as may be imagined, a slim, meagre, almost consumptive-looking document.

It is obvious that, however much lack of success the Government have had in cutting down their activities and expenditure in other respects, they have been singularly successful in Wales, because the Report covers the whole of the action taken in Wales for one year. Among other references, the Report said, in paragraph 14, that the work of afforestation and reafforestation had been affected by the wet weather. And paragraph 133 stated that there were sixty-one students in training at the Forestry Training School at Gwydyr Forest, of whom only ten were Welsh-born. Apart from that there was little reference to the subject.

The Welsh Committee of the National Farmers' Union have commented at some length on the Report of the Sub-Commission. They have recorded their appreciation of the comprehensive manner in which the Sub-Commission presented their proposals, but viewed with concern the Sub-Commission's expectation that considerable areas would be offered for sale and acquired by the Government for afforestation. The Welsh Committee felt, among other things, that there must be a properly planned programme which would accord to agriculture its proper place, and not that of a junior partner. They agreed that increased afforestation on a genuinely voluntary basis, and in a spirit of free and unforced co-operation, could provide a useful pattern for the future and should go far to generate the necessary spirit of good will from all concerned. I have found that there is a good deal of misunderstanding regarding forestry in Wales. Since this Motion was put down on the Order Paper I have had a number of letters from farmers and others, all of whom, while criticising the Commission to some extent, support forestry. Obviously, there is misunderstanding about the objects of the Commission, and I hope that this debate will do much to clear the air. I think that it is badly needed in Wales.

The White Paper, Cmd. 9809, published this week comments upon the recommendations of the Mid-Wales Investigation Report. The Government are, it says, in general agreement with the conclusions in the report…They consider that prosperity, stable employment, and improvement of services in the rural areas of Wales can best be promoted by the development of agriculture on the basis of economically viable and well-equipped farms, coupled with an extension of forestry. The Government agree with the Sub-Commission that the balance of economic argument is in favour of increasing the size of many of the upland farms —that was a matter on which the National Farmers' Union seemed to have some doubt—and that the younger generation will not stay in the hills unless they see the prospect of combining the hill farmer's independence with a higher standard of living …

They do not intend to develop the economic farms by compulsory means—and that, also, was a bone of contention with the farmers, who hoped that it would continue by voluntary means. The Government propose to operate through the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts on certain principles set out in paragraph 11 of the new White Paper.

The Government agree with the conclusions of the Report on forestry, and endorse the view that there should be the closest co-operation between agriculture and forestry interests, which require to be co-ordinated locally, as they are on properly managed estates.

I think it is important, too, that they say the extension of forestry will therefore bring new blood and more diverse employment into areas which otherwise would continue to lose population.

Few of us in your Lordships' House, whatever may be the case outside, would quarrel with those sentiments; but the means by which the Government propose to carry out their intention may be open to more criticism.

The first part of the means, the machinery, is the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who we know is a well-oiled and lubricated machine, although in this context. I think, a singularly silent one, unlike most machines, since, alas! he has not spoken in this House on any of his duties in regard to Wales. I have already said that I think that is a mistake. However, we wish him every possible success in his work, and hope that the machinery will tick over well and produce results. Whether or not it will produce results is the main thing. The second part of the machinery is a Committee. Whenever anybody wants to do anything in Wales somebody always suggests that there should be a committee. Usually, of course, whatever the object may be, nothing whatever is done; but I hope that in this case something will be done. The committee is to consist of the heads of the Welsh Offices of the various departments affected who are resident in Wales. I should like to ask the Minister who is to reply: Will the Committee, as distinct from the gentlemen who compose it, have "teeth"? Can the teeth chew, and, if necessary, bite? if they cannot—in other words, if they have not executive power, as distinct from ruminative power—then the Committee will be no good. What we want in this case is action. In so far as this is a stage in the evolution of a real Government for Wales, I welcome it. and I hope that the Government's dental surgery will be adequate.

The Forestry Commission's work is important in the context of the subject on which I am speaking, and Mr. Ryle, the Director of Forestry for Wales, has kindly sent me some details of the Commission's work in Wales. From these figures, compiled in September last, it appears that the Commission manage 179,000 acres of land under forest crops in Wales and are increasing their holding at a rate of about 13,000 acres annually. In addition to the land under trees, the Ministry own another 55,000 acres of plantable bare land and derelict woodland. Thus there is a maximum reserve equal to only four years' normal planting —and badly distributed at that, I may say, so far as the available labour resources are concerned. New houses are needed in the depopulated areas of mid-Wales, and they are slowly being built. There are about 180,000 acres of privately owned woodlands in Wales, of which 75,000 acres are classed as felled, devastated, scrub or coppice—to me a rather dismal-sounding description. Private planting reached the figure of 1,246 acres last year, 27 per cent. of this being carried out for the owners by registered co-operative woodland societies.

The Commission would like a better flow of land by purchase or lease. They say that in a time of full employment it is not easy to secure stable teams of employees, especially in Glamorgan and North-East Wales, while in the depopulated areas of mid-Wales there is a gross deficiency of labour. As to how depopulated they are—I cannot vouch for this, but I saw it in quite a reputable publication—the average population in this area of Wales, and particularly Radnorshire, is equal only to the average population in England at the time of Queen Elizabeth I. While that is no doubt delightful from the point of view of holiday-makers with a car—provided it has good springs—it is not particularly good either for the land or for the people who live in the area. The dry weather this year has given rise to severe forest fires—that is a great worry of the Commission—one of the latest being in the Brecon Beacons. The public need a good deal of enlightenment on fire danger. I have read of an interesting development at Cymmer, a Glamorgan mining village, where the children at a modern secondary school have adopted part of a forest and are looking after it. I think that that might well be encouraged in these areas, and particularly in the mining areas.

The criticisms of the Forestry Commission I have heard from landowners, and that I have received from farmers in letter form, are these. First of all, that the Commission tend to take on more land than they can deal with. I must say that I have seen myself some rather bad examples of neglect. Secondly, the prices they offer, either to buy or to lease land, are very poor. Thirdly, for æsthetic reasons, there should be more diversity; that is to say, hardwood as well as softwood—and I think we should all agree on that. Fourthly, small pieces of land and small coppices, often useful as windbreaks, the Forestry Commission will not touch. Fifthly, they tend to go for good farming land or hill land needed for grazing in conjunction with land in the vales. Lastly, few Welshmen are being trained as forestry officers or foresters. I remember that in the Government's own Report for 1955 they said that only ten were being trained.

That is the criticism of the people who are interested particularly in agriculture. But there is another big, powerful body of criticism in Wales which is not particularly interested in agriculture (I do not mean by that that they are disinterested, but they are not particularly interested in it) and they are the people who are particularly interested in Welsh culture. They have been very much in opposition to forestry, because they feel that if there is an influx of English foresters and forestry officers, an extension of forestry in the areas where forestry is most needed, which are also often the Welsh-speaking areas, will mean a decline in the amount of Welsh spoken and a decay in Welsh culture. This, possibly more than anything else, is the reason why the Forestry Commission are having difficulty in Wales. It is not only an economic matter; they have to convince this powerful body of opinion in Wales that an extension of forestry will not necessarily mean a lack of Welsh culture, or an attack on Welsh culture. I myself have said in Wales that it is not much good having Welsh culture if there is no one to be cultured. That is rather the position we are getting to in mid-Wales; we are really moving towards depopulation. If there are no people there, however brilliant the old culture was, there is nothing left. Therefore, it is much better to have more people there and to take the necessary steps to see that a proportion of them is Welsh and that the others have the opportunity of benefiting from Welsh culture. I would say, therefore, that in order to deal with this objection, there should be on the part of the Government and the Commission a drive of great energy and imagination to attract Welsh-speaking recruits to train as forestry officers and foresters.

Although the high land in mid-Wales is the most serious problem to which forestry can help to provide a solution, there is much need for forestry elsewhere in Wales. I have seen hills and mountains in North Wales where soil erosion is very bad—as bad as in many parts of Kenya, and that is saying a good deal. Whole mountain sides are scarred where the soil has been washed away by the rains which have come after the trees and grass have been removed. In Glamorgan, I am pleased to see that the trees are once more appearing on the hillsides, due to the efforts of the Forestry Commission. As a result of the Industrial Revolution we have become accustomed to bare mountains in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire, enclosing valleys littered with sad, semi-derelict mining camps—camps hurriedly and recklessly rushed up by the 19th century developers. Yet until the industrial Revolution Glamorgan was full of trees. The valleys, up to comparatively recently, were heavily wooded, and, by reason of these woods and their-satellite bogs, the only way from north to south in Glamorgan was along the ridges of the hills. It was quite impossible to go by the valleys at all.

That is all I have to say on this, to me, most interesting and important subject. I welcome the White Paper, and I shall be interested to hear the exposition of the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, on it. In conclusion, may I quote what Macaulay said of Francis Bacon: No pressure of distress could induce him to part with the woods of Gorhambury. 'I will not,' he said, 'be stripped of my feathers',

Wales has, in modern times, been stripped of her feathers. We want the Government, the Forestry Commission, the local authorities, the landowners and the farmers, with a mighty and sustained effort, to replace these feathers. I beg to move for Papers.

3.32 p.m.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

My Lords, the order of speakers in this debate is rather interesting. It is sometimes said that it matters who bats first. In this case, the first three names on the Order Paper are those of my noble friend Lord Ogmore, myself and my noble friend Lord Listowel. We three go in first. We are followed by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn. They go in afterwards. That is rather a good arrangement—that this side shall bat first. The wicket is quite as good on this occasion for both sides, and there is no complaint with regard to that.

I wish to compliment my noble friend Lord Ogmore upon having introduced this Motion and upon having done so in so pleasing and persuasive a manner. He has done one thing which pleases me: he has falsified the prognostications that the purpose of this Motion was to enable the Welsh people to express their grouses and their grumbles, to say that Wales had been neglected and would never get what she ought to have until she had a Parliament for Wales. My noble friend has made it perfectly plain that his reason for bringing forward the Motion is that something needs to be done in Wales now, and in particular in the rural areas. He himself has expressed his sympathy with the need of a Parliament for Wales. What I should like to say to those who are not yet convinced of the need for a Parliament for Wales is that they must realise that the Parliament in Westminster must do as much for Wales as a Parliament for Wales would do. We cannot just stand on the sidelines and say, "We do not support a Parliament for Wales." Both political Parties are inclined to do that at the moment, without realising their responsibility for making it unnecessary to have a Parliament in Wales by seeing that the Parliament in Westminster takes care of the best interests of Wales. It is a responsibility of whoever is unable to accept a Parliament for Wales to do all he can in the interests of Wales from the Parliament in Westminster. That is what my noble friend is now trying to do.

It cannot be said that there is a general attitude in Wales favourable to afforestation. The attitude towards afforestation varies, as does the attitude towards every single question according to the area one is in. I live in Wales and I spend most of my time there. I travel Wales and go in every area, and I notice the reaction of the various areas to this question of afforestation. I went into an area where there was a rumour that afforestation was on the way. What was the attitude there? Fear, distrust, suspicion and doubt. Why? They were not quite sure how they were going to be affected, and each individual and each family examined the proposition from the point of view of "How will the introduction of forestry into this area affect me at the present time?"

I moved from there into an area where forestry had been recently introduced. What is the attitude now? One of vigilance, of looking for opportunities to justify their previous suspicion and doubt, and ready to refer to any objectionable feature. This is the type of conversation I have listened to in Welsh (it would not be much good repeating it to the noble Earl in that language): "Ha! but have you noticed who the top men are?—Englishmen and Scotsmen; no Welshmen there; no Welshmen amongst the officers, not even the N.C.O.'s. Typical of the Sassenachs, who use every country in their own interest. It is the old game. They have already Anglicised the coastal towns and the industrial areas, and now they are setting about Anglicising the rural areas." That is the attitude in those districts.

With regard to the question of language, does it surprise anybody that the Welsh want to keep their language? What nation in the world does not want to keep its language? The Welsh people are anxious to keep theirs. I was asked by a very good Englishman friend of mine, "Do you really think it is worth all this effort to acquire and retain the Welsh language? Would it not be better if the amount of energy and time spent on acquiring or retaining it were spent on something else of greater educational value?" That is not a fair attitude towards the language of any country. The people of Wales have a fine literature. I would not claim that in every aspect it is equal to the literature of England, but it is worth retaining. After all, the Anglicisation of Wales is a matter which causes concern not to the fanatic, but to the sober men, the men who matter in Wales. I can quite understand the attitude towards the accepting or rejecting of afforestation in certain areas. You are not on the fringe of Wales, but in the heart of Wales. You are in the Wales where the language matters, and naturally they view any project with suspicion.

When I leave those areas and get to areas where forestry is firmly established they take a different view altogether. I find there a favourable attitude. They have seen the value of afforestation in those areas and they are prepared to help, although not without complaints. I was in Coed-y-Brenin which the noble Earl and especially the noble Lord will know; it is outside Dolgelley. I discussed that matter there, and one man said: "We have no objection whatever. It is a very good thing for this area, but it does harbour the foxes." Then he added, humorously, "And do not forget that there is an adequate supply of two-footed foxes already. We need not have the four-footed ones here." But there were no complaints, except just a hint. I put the question myself, "Are you afraid of Anglicisation in this area? Are you afraid that it will have an influence in retaining the Welsh language." The answer was, "Not in the least".

One finds these various attitudes in various areas, and sometimes a variety of attitudes. But when you get to another area, the hill-farming area, you find they are not altogether in favour or in opposition. Those who sell their hill farms at a good price to the Commission and get jobs with the Commission seem quite satisfied with forestry. They seem to think that there is no objection whatever to forestry in such circumstances. Do not forget that in Wales they lost 2,400 small farms between 1939 and 1949; that means, that tenants of those farms ceased to farm. You talk about the denuding of the rural areas. That is a pretty big thing. What do you find? What the people there are afraid is that, when there is a farm likely to become vacant, the farmers who would like to get it will not be able to compete with forestry. Forestry's resources are so much greater. They are a little concerned. Though they agree that there is no compulsion about it, it is very near compulsion, the way the factors work.

I want also to refer briefly to the recruiting side. We are not recruiting too well into forestry, and there are reasons for that. The first reason is that there is sonic doubt as to its future. After all, we cannot expect parents in Wales, or anywhere else in the country, to be very keen about their sons going into forestry if there is some uncertainty about its permanence. We cannot expect the, fellow of eighteen years of age to come in when he is not sure whether he will be there when he is fifty-eight or sixty-eight. That doubt needs to be removed, in order to give a feeling of security to those who come into forestry. Then the workers will be forthcoming.

I have already referred to the question of Anglicisation and its effects—it deters recruitment. Remember that there is something else, also: there is the question of training in Wales. I was told in Dolgelley that the newcomer is trained very much on military lines. If there is one part of the United Kingdom that is less militant than any other, it is Wales, as compared with England or Scotland. This military method of training does not appeal to them. One can see officers, N.C.O.s and other ranks there. That is not a good thing in Wales. It does not help to get forestry accepted generally by Wales.

I asked the Director of Forestry in the University a few questions. I sent him a number of questions, but there is only one to which I want to refer to-day. I understand that Bangor University provides a degree for forestry—I believe that it is the only university in Wales which does that, though I think Oxford also has such a degree. I think I am right in saying that these are the only two universities below the Border which give such a degree. I asked him what number of Welsh students are entering the University to study forestry. And may I say here, in reference to his reply, that I am not blaming forestry for the figures. If the young Welsh men, for some reason or another, are not prepared to come in, it is not the fault of forestry or of the Government. However, this is what he said. It is difficult to know exactly whom to classify as 'Welsh,' as some students born, bred and educated in Wales are of English parentage, while of those who are partly Welsh (one parent Welsh) some have been born, bred and educated in Wales and others in England. Also many who must be considered as purely Welsh are not Welsh-speaking, especially some from South Wales. Approximately 25 per cent. of the forestry students are Welsh. Of the fifty-seven students now in the college, fourteen may be considered as Welsh, and two as domiciled, as follows: truly Welsh, Welsh-speaking—seven; not Welsh-speaking—four; partly Welsh, Welshspeaking—two; not Welsh-speaking—one. Domiciled in Wales, not Welsh-speaking—two. If overseas students are not taken into consideration, Welsh candidates have formed from 30 to 50 per cent. of the admissions each year. Since, apart from Oxford, Bangor is the only university south of the Tweed with a forestry degree course, there are many English candidates each year of whom only a small proportion can be admitted. That gives the position. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether, when he replies, he can give us some assurance that he himself, through his Ministry and through his colleague, Lord Mancroft, will take some steps to try to get the young Welshmen in Wales to take a greater interest in forestry. I should be glad if an assurance could be given.

There is one other matter to which I want to refer in regard to the question in general. Afforestation is certainly a blessing to Wales. Before I went to Newfoundland, at the request of my noble friend Lord Attlee, I made it my business to see Sir Roy Robinson, later Lord Robinson. I knew that in Newfoundland forestry was an established fact, in every sense, and I thought that the more I knew about forestry before getting there, the better. At the same time, I took consultation with the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, who also knew Newfoundland wonderfully well. From both sources I got the same attitude. What Sir Roy Robinson said was "Two world wars should have taught us one thing, if nothing else the vital importance of forestry to the economy of any country." At the same time, I went up to Scotland and saw those 900 lumberers from Newfoundland who had operated there during the war. I realised that forestry was a specialised occupation. It needed men who were interested in forestry, as such, and who were prepared to put up with many things.

Before coming to the White Paper I should like to read part of a letter I received from someone who carries great weight in mid-Wales, a man of great standing. I will read a few sentences from his letter, because they indicate what the people there feel. In his letter, sent after the Report on which these Conclusions are based was issued, he writes: They can talk about the greater returns per acre from forestry, the country's need for timber"— we can see here the eloquence of the Welshman— the balancing of our national accounts, conservation of the soil, shelter to the farm lands, and improvement of rural amenities, et cetera. Arguments in the abstract get us nowhere. What is needed is a decision taken in the light of what is best for the nation. I would suggest that all derelict woodlands and bracken-infested areas should be planted first of all and surveys made towards this end. He goes on— We also must be rid of this foreign hierarchy in Welsh forestry to-day. There is one question that I ought to ask before dealing with the White Paper. I understand that in Wales there was a great amount of cutting down between 1914 and 1918. To my amazement, I am now informed that those areas which were cut down then have not been replanted in the intervening period, That I cannot understand. Why in the world go in search of new land when there are these vast areas which could have been replanted? I cannot understand that. Maybe the noble Earl can give me some enlightenment on that.

I now have a question on the White Paper. The last sentence of paragraph 5 says, referring to the development of well-equipped farms, based on the rearing of cattle and sheep: This should be done without resorting to compulsory means. As I have indicated already, there is exercised sometimes something which, if not quite compulsion, is certainly very near compulsion. I should like some reassurance that this statement in paragraph 5 means what it says, that no compulsory means, even of an indirect character, will be exercised for this purpose. Then paragraph 9 says: The Government believe that the creation of stable conditions in the rural areas can be achieved… and so on. I should like to be quite sure what is meant by "stable conditions". Conditions at the moment in the rural areas are that there has been a big leaving of the rural areas. Would the retention of the present population of the rural areas be considered stability? I want to be quite certain what is meant, because that can be an ambiguous phrase. I am a little concerned as to what it means.

Then the second sentence of paragraph 11 says: This means in particular that land more suitable for growing trees will be excluded. Who decides the suitability of soil? Who decides whether the land shall be left for forestry or used for agricultural purposes? I would ask the same question in regard to paragraph 14 on forestry, which says: They agree with the broad classification by the Sub-Commission of the types of land in the survey area… Who decides on these areas—what authority? I can well believe that it is the Committee intended to be set up under this White Paper.

Turning to paragraph 16, I am most anxious to know what is meant by "close consultation". I happen to have occupied various posts in life's journey and there has been consultation on what one might call close level and otherwise. What is meant here by "close consultation"? Is it anything approaching integration between agriculture and forestry? If it is, well and good. The last paragraph about which I am a little concerned relates to this small Standing Committee. I was rather surprised when my noble friend ventured to ask whether the members of this Committee would have teeth. When one looks at the composition of this Committee one sees that it comprises the heads of the Welsh Offices of the Departments resident in Wales. I wonder whether we can ever expect a permanent civil servant to have teeth? I am not concerned with whether or not they have teeth; my main concern is whether they can speak Welsh. In my opinion, it would be a crime not to have at least one member who can speak Welsh when the Committee are going round and talking to the farmers in these local areas.

I quite appreciate the last sentence—namely: The Government intend that this Committee shall assist and work through existing public authorities and shall aim at helping them to secure the development of each part of rural Wales in the manner that its special local circumstances require. Then the paragraph continues: The Committee will consult with such persons and bodies as it feels will be able to help it and will be asked to consider whether the creation of a special advisory panel would, be of assistance in its work. It seems to me that there is going to be a lot of consultation with other people.

May I make one suggestion which I hope the noble Earl will take to his right honourable friends? Would it not be better and would it not do much for this work if, for instance, we were to put on the Committee the chairman of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire as well as the other civil servants, and also an outstanding agriculturist in the reference area? In that way, much of this so-called consultation would be unnecessary. I think it would also appeal to the Welsh people generally if this matter were not entirely in the hands of civil servants. There are all these civil servants there already. If you simply add the chairman of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire along with a leading agriculturist from that area, I am certain that this Committee would appeal much more to Wales than it does now. I am also certain that it would render better service.

Now, although naturally this House looks upon Wales, with its 2½ million people, as a minor partner in the United Kingdom, I hope that the Government will not only implement what is contained in this White Paper but will go far beyond that. I do not know what the reaction in Wales has been. As yet, I have not seen any. But I rather think that the reaction will be: "Too late, too little." I hope that the noble Earl, in winding up to-day, will be able to give us some reassurance on the matters raised by my noble friend and myself and on those that will be raised later by my noble friend Lord Listowel.

3.54 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree, after listening to the speeches of my two noble friends, that Welshmen speak with a warmth of feeling and an intimacy of understanding of their problems which those of us who are not Welsh cannot hope to equal. As a mere Englishman, and the first to participate in this debate, I feel that I ought to justify my temerity. I do so for two reasons. The first is that I am a member of the National Committee for Forestry for England. I think that this would effectively prevent me from talking about forestry in England, but I hope that your Lordships will consider that it may even be a qualification for talking about forestry in Wales. My other reason is that when I was at the Ministry of Agriculture, occupying the post now held by the noble Earl opposite, I had the good fortune to make a fairly extensive tour of Central and Southern Wales.

My experience of forestry here in the last few years, as a member of the National Committee for England, has convinced me that we are in great danger of a national shortage of home-grown timber. We are not keeping up with the forestry programme which we laid down for ourselves at the end of the war. We are not acquiring a sufficient area of plantable land, and in the future we may well find ourselves still far too dependent on imported timber, which of course requires valuable foreign exchange and which, indeed, in time of war may be unobtainable. It is therefore a national requirement that we should grow as much timber as possible in every part of our Island.

There are two things that struck me particularly, during my time in Wales—both of them have been emphasised by my two noble friends who speak with much greater experience in this matter than I do. The first is the urgent need for afforestation in order to prevent the drift of population into the towns, the depopulation of the countryside, and to maintain a permanent and stable level of employment. Also, forestry is required, and more planting is urgently needed, if a reasonable level of wages and reasonably good conditions are to be maintained in the rural areas. Although I know that many Welsh farmers would not agree with this point of view, I became convinced—and I am sure that my noble friends share my view—that forestry in Wales, if it is developed on the right lines, will supplement, and not interfere with, farming. I cannot believe that the land that would be taken for growing timber is the sort of land that could be used successfully for hill or upland farming. I am quite certain that the two rural industries could go forward together and would help one another in doing so.

A good deal has been said about Welsh hostility and suspicion, and about the fear of forestry. Nobody knows those feelings better than noble Lords who speak Welsh and who are on most intimate terms with many people who live in that part of the country. Many reasons have been given for this hostility and fear in regard to forestry. Of course, it is difficult—my two noble friends gave a number of reasons for this —to assess their importance, but I think that perhaps one of the most important reasons, and one which was stressed particularly by my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, was the fear that an extension of forestry would mean English interference in Welsh affairs—a sort of English or foreign invasion of Wales. One can quite understand that fear, whether or not it is justified on purely rational considerations. It is quite obvious at the moment that the forestry service is manned mainly by Englishmen, and that if forestry develops on a greater scale in Wales more Englishmen will go into Wales to deal with forestry —unless, of course (and this is the important qualification), more Welshmen are recruited into the forestry service. I regard that as a matter of absolutely prime importance.

My noble friend Lord Ogmore pointed out that in 1955 there were only ten Welshmen in training in the forestry service, and it is a sad fact that Welshmen seem to come forward for work in that service in much smaller numbers than Englishmen or Scotsmen. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, suggested that one difficulty was the uncertainty and insecurity of employment in the forestry service. I have no doubt that the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, will answer that objection, but from what I have seen of the forestry service this particular objection has little real foundation. For after all, as the noble Lord will appreciate, trees planted now will need to be looked after for the next fifty or one hundred years, or even longer; and that is certainly good enough for the lifetime of most Englishmen who enter the forestry service now or within the next few years. I do not believe that there is the same uncertainty and insecurity about the future of those who go into the forestry service that might well he felt by some who consider entering the Oversea Civil Service.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

My Lords, I should like to make myself clear. I do not personally think that there is no future in forestry: it is the parents and the boys themselves who are doubtful about it. I wanted the noble Earl, with his colleague, to take action to see that these people's minds were disabused on this issue.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I apologise to my noble friend if I misrepresented him on that point. I now understand that he shares my view that the forestry service offers just as good an opening as any other profession, and that he wishes the noble Earl who is to reply, speaking with the authority of Her Majesty's Government, to allay the fears of those who take a different view. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will give encouragement to the people who live in rural Wales and that, when he comes to reply, the noble Earl will show that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take action and do what is required in order to prevent the economy of rural Wales from deteriorating even more rapidly than it has deteriorated since the war. I very much hope that the noble Earl may be able to give that encouragement, for which I believe every speaker in this debate will ask, in relation to the people of rural Wales.

4.3 p.m.

LORD DYNEVOR

My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships' House for the first time, and I hope I have not stepped in front of my noble friend, Lord Haden-Guest, who I understood was to speak next. It is perhaps appropriate in this case that I should come first, because some years ago the noble Lord gave me a considerable trouncing in a constituency in a General Election. He won the contest and I was a bad second. I hope your Lordships will forgive my bad voice, but I am just recovering from a rather heavy cold. The opportunity of addressing your Lordships during a Welsh forestry debate is one which I found hard to resist when I arrived at your Lordships' House this afternoon. Perhaps I may be pardoned for intervening, as I have taken considerable interest in forestry in Wales and some years ago played a minor but not ineffective part in defeating the Forestry Commission in some of their efforts to acquire large hill farms in Carmarthen, Brecon and Cardigan. I believe that was the only occasion on which we were able to force a public inquiry into the compulsory acquisition proposals of the Forestry Commission and to get them withdrawn.

It was a pity that we had to take that step because I have always taken the view that forestry and agriculture can go hand in hand. Speaking with no malice, because I believe officials of the Forestry Commission are now extremely helpful and willing to co-operate, I may say that at that time there were one or two who took very high-handed actions which aroused the countryside to protest—and successful protest. There are certain factors in the afforestation of this high land which must be borne in mind. In the course of the protest to which I have just referred I accompanied a deputation of Welsh hill farmers to see the then. Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Williams, and at the end of a hard discussion the proceedings closed with one of the largest hill farmers addressing the Minister of Agriculture in these words: Mr. Williams, I am a very unhappy man. You want to take my home, the home of my father and my grandfather, and yet with one stroke of the pen you can relieve my anxiety. Then he added: But I will tell you, Mr. Williams, that if you take my farm, no trees will grow because it is too high. I myself put in 200 and they are all dead. In fact, there is the question of the height of land on which trees will grow.

There is one aspect which has not been referred to in the debate—the aspect of private forestry. A very important Committee set up by the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland two or three years ago, of which I have the honour to be a member, has just concluded its deliberations on an inquiry into home-grown timber from private sources of the United Kingdom. I imagine our Report is now somewhere between the Forestry Commission, the Minister of Agriculture and Her Majesty's Stationery Office, though I do not really know. It is not for me in any way to anticipate the conclusions to which this Committee have come, so that everything I now say is purely personal and derives from my own knowledge of my county of Carmarthen. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, referred with some dismay, truthfully, to the fact that large areas of felled scrub woodlands have not been replanted. Quoting from memory, I believe there are some 20,000 acres in the county of Carmarthen alone which have not been replanted. The reason why the Forestry Commission are unlikely to take them over is the cost. It is much easier to run a plough through virgin hill land and plant a new line of trees than to have to clear the rather thick scrub which has grown up in intervening years; the Forestry Commission do not like doing that.

There is another aspect to which I should like to draw more attention than hitherto has been drawn—the balance between hard and softwoods. It is a strange fact that, in spite of all the fellings, private woodlands are still producing certainly more hardwood, and I believe still more softwood, than State forests. As the years go by, however, that position will change, and I believe that in thirty years from now the flow of thinnings—quite considerably well-grown trees—from State forests will considerably outweigh those from private sources. There is a very potent source of fear for the private owner that if he plants now he will find an enormous volume of timber coming out of the State forests which will cause prices to fall so that he will lose whatever he now puts into it or will fail to get an adequate return from capital sunk to-day. Therefore, I believe that the Government should do all they can to ensure co-operation between the State forests and the private owner.

I think it is also true to say that, so far as hardwoods are concerned, even in thirty years from now the private owner will be producing far more than the State forests. The Forestry Commission are planting very few hardwoods, and the face of England so far as timber is concerned is slowly changing. Even the private owner is planting softwoods. I do it myself because I think that in twenty years from now I shall get a cash crop, whereas if I plant hardwoods it will take me from eighty to a hundred years to achieve that result—and, of course, I shall not be here then. But that thought does not stop me from planting hardwoods altogether, because I believe it to be the duty of every owner who is still allowed to own his land, and so long as he is allowed to own it, to consider posterity. Those who now drive in motor coaches and charabancs throughout the length and breadth of England and revel in the beauty of our countryside are reaping the full benefit of what was done in 1750 and 1780 and 1800, for the time which has passed since then is the period which it takes the best forest trees to attain full maturity. That is one aspect of the question as it relates to the private owner.

Furthermore, there is the complaint which he makes concerning the wages of forestry workers. He maintains that he has no say in the fixing of them, because they are married to the agricultural wages rate, and so far as forestry work is concerned the private owner is not in any way represented in the consideration of wages. I do not attach a great deal of importance to that, but I have heard it said that wages go up and up, and the private owner has no place in which he can argue his point of view as an economic proposition.

To go back to the activities of the Forestry Commission and the question of Welsh national culture, I would point out that it is also true that the countryside is becoming depopulated. And there is this suspicion, which has been mentioned, that it is the English who get the top jobs. I am not at all sure that that is not the fault of the Welsh people themselves. I believe that there is no prejudice against Welshmen, preventing them from going to the top of the tree in this forestry work. The fact is that many of them just do not want to do so. I think that that is very sad. I think they should want to go in for this work. So let the Welsh not complain too much about the English getting the top jobs, seeing that they are not coming forward themselves in sufficient numbers to fill those posts. Let us give them these posts by all means, if they are worth it. When a Welshman says: "Wales for the Welsh" he will never accept the corollary that England might be for the English. They come to England in great numbers, and quite rightly, to make their way in the world. Frequently they are very successful as shopkeepers, particularly as drapers. I do not know whether it has ever struck your Lordships that nearly all the great drapery shops ill London were started by Welshmen. I need only mention such establishments as those of D. H. Evans and John Lewis. The founders of those businesses came to London from Wales to make their fortunes, and everyone wished them well. So I suggest that we must have two-way traffic all the time, However, that matter is rather a long way from forestry.

Let me now summarise the points which I have tried to make. I have asked that the Minister who is going to reply should explain the attitude of the Government on the subject of private forestry. I think that is very important. I shall be glad also if he will state their attitude towards the planting of a reasonable supply of hardwoods in this country, and not merely softwoods. As I have said, the Forestry Commission do little hardwood planting—certainly not enough, in my view. There is still going to be, in South Wales at least, a considerable market for timber pit props, for some time to come. The steel pit prop, it is true, is coming in, and the miner is over-coming his prejudice to it. It always used to be said, as noble Lords opposite will know, that the miner liked the timber pit prop because it told him when the roof was coming down. You can hear a timber prop crack, but you cannot hear a steel prop going: it just bends silently. So although the steel prop is coming in, there is still a great market for the wooden article.

But it is a sensitive market. When the Scottish wind-blow took place three or four years ago special arrangements had to be made to market this timber. Pit props were sent from Scotland to South Wales and they actually knocked the market of the local product. That, I suppose, is fair commercial trading. But if the Almighty chooses to send a wind-blow to the North of Scotland it is rather bad luck that it should affect economics in South Wales. My Lords, I have tried to prod-ace a few points additional to those which have been brought forward so admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and other noble Lords who have already spoken. I shall be grateful for any information on these matters which the noble Earl can give us.

4.16 p.m.

LORD HADEN-GUEST

My Lords, I take a very great interest in this debate, not because I am an expert on timber but because I spent much of my early life in North Wales. I lived in Manchester—I was a medical student there— and, not only at that period but before then, I and the rest of my family went regularly to North Wales, where my father at an early date had built a house on the side of a hill—a house in which, incidentally, one of my sisters still lives. I know well the country adjacent to the Great Orme's Head, the hills behind, and the mountains, Penmaenmawr, Carnedd Llewelyn, Dafydd and Snowdon. I do not know how much tree planting there has been in that enormous area. I remember clearly those places as they were when I used to walk over them. I have walked over them a good many times in the course of my years of experience of that part of the country. And I always thought how much better it would be if, instead of the great areas of rather tired-looking grass, interspersed with little springs and streams, there had been some kind of vegetation, and especially trees.

I welcome this debate with the greatest possible interest, and I hope that it will really wake up opinion in this country. I hope that it will be reported and that the fact that we have in those mountains a large reserve for possible plantations of trees on a very large scale, will thereby become generally known. How far it is possible to plant trees in all those areas, and how much has been done, I do not know; but there is certainly the opportunity of planting an enormous amount of timber. Then you have only to look over and away from the sea towards the valley of the Conway, and there you see an immense valley with great possibilities for the growing of very large numbers of trees.

It seems to me that this may well prove a very important debate in this House, not because of the number of people it attracts to discuss this topic but because of the immense value there would be for this country in the planting and growing of large forests in areas which at the present time are either only partly planted or not planted at all. I believe that in this North Wales area, and other areas adjacent (I will not attempt to describe them, though I know them well), there is the opportunity of developing an immense forest area of great value in places where because of the nature of the soil, the position of the area itself and the weather that prevails, ordinary agricultural products cannot easily be grown. I am thinking especially of the heights of the mountains, like Carnedd Llewelyn and Snowdon, though I am afraid that trees will not grow very heartily on the tops of the mountains, though they will in many areas round them.

I do not think that this is a question between Welsh people and English people, a question of petty jealousies and minor feuds. It is a question of developing a great national resource—and this applies not only to Wales but also to Scotland and other parts of the British Isles. The modern scientific study and cultivation of trees will add to our resources. Bangor University, which has a degree in forestry, lies under the shade of two great mountains, Carnedd Llewelyn and Carnedd Dafydd, and I think it is significant that that should be so. If this matter were properly launched and handled from the point of view of public representation, there would be nothing but approval for it, and among the people who live in these areas there would be a desire to make the new industry a real one and a great addition to our national wealth.

4.22 p.m.

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, on his maiden speech in your Lordships' House. I feel that your Lordships, one and all, will agree with me that we listened to his speech with great interest and I am prompted to say that I hope he will address the House on many future occasions. The noble Lord was too modest to mention the fact, which I happen to know, that in his own park there are some of the finest matured trees to be found in Great Britain. I should like to touch on one or two of the aspects of this question mentioned in the debate, but before doing so may I apologise, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for the fact that owing to another important engagement I was not able to hear his speech? I think that he has done a good service in introducing this subject for debate.

It seems to me plain that Wales, as a geographical unit, comparing it not only with England but with other neighbouring countries, is an area especially suitable for forestry. It is undoubtedly a suitable area for tree-growing, particularly softwoods. Some people do not like that, but it is no good kicking against the pricks in this matter. We have to harden ourselves to the fact that whereas in the southern counties of England it may be preferable to plant chestnut, beech, oak and ash, generally speaking in the Welsh counties it is preferable to plant softwoods. I do not think it is any good trying to hide that fact, as some people do. In my opinion, the farther west you go on this island, the better you will find the Japanese larch, which is one of the most valuable of timbers we can cultivate to-day.

The noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, touched on the subject of the proportion of hardwoods and softwoods now being planted. It is no good trying to hide the fact that, broadly speaking, softwoods are what the public want to buy. My figures may be a little out of date, but they show that the public use 6 per cent. hardwood and 94 per cent. softwood. If these figures are anywhere near correct, then one must ask the question: how much good is it to plant large areas of hardwood, taking into account that Wales is less suitable than England for hardwoods and more suitable for softwoods? Some people persist in holding the idea that because the oak is found in most parts of Wales—though in most cases it is nothing but a scrub oak—it must be planted to-day. I think that that is an untenable proposition.

Some people object to the planting of all trees, whatever they are. I have found that the same people will often object to cutting down trees; and in one or two cases I have known, the same people have objected to the planting and the cutting down of the same trees. But that is just one of the difficulties with which forestry has to contend. I do not understand the feeling against planting trees, but there is no doubt that that feeling does exist. Not long ago I was at a meeting where there was a discussion about whether certain land should be made available for forestry. The area concerned shall be nameless, but the ultimate answer given was to let it go for forestry, because the trees will not be visible anyway. That shows an attitude of mind that I cannot understand, because, to my mind, amenity and utility are served by forestry as they are by no other industry. Not only do I see no conflict between the two, but, on the other hand, I see a marriage between utility and amenity of which I know no parallel.

We still hear a great deal of criticism of forestry not only on the ground of utility but also on the ground of amenity. Some years ago a party of German foresters were brought over as guests of the forestry people in this country and were shown what we had done. They were taken to North Wales, to Snowdonia, and duly shown the wonderful country that is to be found there. Afterwards they were asked for their impressions, and the hosts stood round expecting them to say what a wonderful country this was. But what did they say? They said: "What a wonderful country this could be"—meaning, of course, if it were planted with trees. That shows a different attitude of mind. I am not saying that a foreign attitude of mind is necessarily the best in our country, but I think that we can learn from the experience of other countries. I repeat that I just do not understand the hostility to planting trees in order to make the country more beautiful.

I would say a few words about the work of the Forestry Commission. I have no brief for the Commission: I have never been one of the Commissioners, though I ought perhaps to disclose what interest I have, which is a small one. I have served on advisory committees of the Forestry Commission, but I feel practically perfectly open to criticise them. Taking it all round, I believe that the country owes a great debt to the Forestry Commission and all who work for them. They would be the last to deny that there have been, and still continue to be, criticisms; and perhaps they would even admit that some of them are justified. But when we look back to the days when the Commission were formed, in 1919 or 1920, I think that we must agree that they have done a wonderful piece of work in face of a number of difficulties.

I used to criticise them very much at one time because they would never take over small pieces of land. The reason was obvious: it did not pay. Here I would say that I greatly admire the fact that, whenever you talk to an employee of the Forestry Commission, he has at his finger ends the cost of everything. If you bear in mind that they are spending our money, I think that is something for which we must give them full credit. I do not blame them for saying that they do not want little pieces of land because they do not pay. Sometimes, however, ordinary private landowners ought to, and do, continue operations which are not strictly profitable but which are for the good of the community and the country. I have thought sometimes that the Forestry Commission ought, perhaps, to do a little in that line, too. Now they are taking over comparatively small pieces of land.

Here I would venture to differ from my noble friend Lord Dynevor. He related how he joined in the opposition—a few years ago now— to the acquisition of a large parcel of land in the Upper Towy Valley. I found myself on the other side. It was nothing to do with me, but I sympathised with the Forestry Commission in regard to that issue and I do not mind saying that I was sorry they did not eventually take over the land but gave way to the popular clamour and opposition, some of which was justified. I think, looking back on it now, that the Commission were probably quite justified in trying to take over that land, and I believe that in due time the decision will be regretted. But who knows who was right?

There is another operation conducted by the Forestry Commission in which I have always taken a particular interest, because I think it will do much good. I refer to what I believe is called officially the Llandovery project, so-called because it started with an area of land in a ten-mile circle thrown round the town of Llandovery. The scheme was, and still is, that within that area the Forestry Commission, so far as time allows, approach the owner of every single acre of land which has trees upon it, or which could have trees upon it, and in polite language, ask him whether he will make his land productive, or allow the Commission to do it. There are compulsory powers, but so far as I know, they have never yet been used. I mention that scheme because I think it is on the right lines. I am glad to think that that sort of experiment is now being extended to other parts of the country, and I hope that it will continue. Shortage of staff, I know, makes it a slow operation, but I venture to suggest to Her Majesty's Government, and also, if I may, to the Forestry Commission, that that is the right line to proceed upon, and I hope that the experiment will be extended.

In that way we can tackle the problem mentioned in this Motion—namely, the problem of waste land. I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, to the utmost in his anxiety to eliminate the waste of land which goes on in this country to-day. You go to foreign countries on the Continent and you constantly comment on the absence of waste land. Then you come back here, and you see it all over the place. There are in Wales many hillsides, steep land and dingles which, either because they are so steep, or for other reasons, cannot be cultivated for agriculture. They are crying out aloud to be planted with trees; yet nothing is done. It is mostly the fault of private owners, who probably never give the matter a thought; but it is high time that it was given a thought by somebody.

That leads me to this point. The Ministry of Agriculture set up county authorities, and they exercise a certain amount of pressure on the owners and occupiers of land either to farm their land properly or to allow someone else to do it. I support that idea, and I have never been able to understand why some such system should not be applied to forestry. If it is right that a private owner should be put under pressure to produce something from his fields, his farmland, his arable land, why is it not right that he should be put under pressure to produce something from his woodland? I expect that I shall be a little unpopular for saying that, but I believe it to be right. I should like to repeat a suggestion that I have frequently made in the past—namely, that on every agricultural executive committee there should be at least one officer or member who is primarily concerned with forestry. We know that right at the top there is a complete marriage between forestry and agriculture, but it does not go down very far through the structure of the Ministry; and when we get to the lower levels there is a separation which I believe is unfortunate. We have the same Minister. Why should we not have the same county organisation? I believe that it would be to the benefit of forestry as well as of agriculture.

Another suggestion that I should like to make (if it has been made already, I apologise) is that there should be a wider extension of forestry co-operative societies. I know the difficulty of establishing these societies: you have to get the good will and the backing of all the woodland owners in order to get them going, and that is not easy. So much depends on the personality of the man who is running the society. However, they have got going, and are working successfully in Wales, as well as in England, though not all over the country. I know that there is an extremely successful one in the Dovey Valley, and if it can be done there, why cannot it be done elsewhere? The Commission have done their best to start these organisations but they cannot do everything; these schemes must also depend upon, and have the support of, private woodland owners. I am sorry to say, being one myself, that private woodland owners are rather conservative people and not very enterprising in this regard. But I believe that if we could get co-operative woodland societies established to cover the whole country it would be of great benefit to forestry.

There is another small point, which may be most important in the future—and again, I hope it has not been dealt with already. I believe that to-day in this country there are two, or perhaps more, pulp mills established to deal with the products of woodlands. There is one, if not actually in Wales, at any rate very near Wales, at the Severn Tunnel; and there is another just over the border in North Wales. I look forward to a great extension of that activity. I know of no more promising outlet for otherwise rather worthless hardwood thinnings than these pulp mills. The great difficulty at the moment is the distance between the woods and the mills. I would appeal to everyone to try to get such a scheme working, because obviously if it works successfully more mills will be established and so the distances will be reduced. I shall be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say about this, if he can tell us anything, because I regard it as one of the most important future activities of forestry in Wales.

In conclusion, I want to say just a word or two about that part of the Motion dealing with depopulation. I know that a great number of people are worried about the depopulation of a large area in Central Wales. Whether it be in Wales, Scotland or anywhere else, I have never shared the fears of those people who regard this as a disaster. There are over 50 million people in this island. I know that not everyone will agree with me, but I am not worried by the fact that there is a shift of population of those 50 million people. To a great extent, I would allow them to live where they want to live. What is the result of this depopulation? It leaves, it is true, certain unfortunate results—empty houses, and so forth. I suggest that we should tackle this problem, not by trying artificially to bring an unwilling population back again into the area, but by trying to make the best use of the land as they leave it.

After all, when the contrary happens —when it is suggested that a new town should be established in the heart of the country; when it is suggested that there should be a decanting of 20,000 people from a large city into the country—there is always great opposition. I strongly suspect that the opposition to what is called "urban sprawl" will come from the same people who most bitterly regret the depopulation of the countryside. So I do not view with the same alarm as many people this tendency, which is admittedly a fact, by which an area in Central Wales is being depopulated. Let us turn it into an area of great scenic beauty and attraction. Let us turn it, by forestry, into a productive area. If, incidentally, forestry will repopulate it, nobody will be more glad than I, because it is undoubtedly true that forestry serves to populate a countryside with more people than agriculture ever can. I have known in Wales, in Carmarthenshire and in other parts, new villages springing up entirely due to the activities of the Forestry Commission. I regard that as a wholly healthy sign of activity, and one to be encouraged. I have been able to touch upon only a few of the topics which can fall under the heading of this Motion. I join with other noble Lords in looking forward to hearing what the Government and the Minister have to say on this subject.

4.43 p.m.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

My Lords, I will not keep the House more than a few moments before we hear what the Government and the Minister have to say. In fact, I strongly suspect that I shall be out of order first, last and all the time. I doubt whether any noble Lord who is not a Welshman or a Minister has any right to talk on this Motion. I feel that I shall be out of order in straying, as I shall do, over the borders of Wales into England and away from forestry into agriculture. I hope that I am not going to be out of order in saying how sorry I am to hear that I came in too late to hear my noble friend Lord Dynevor make his maiden speech.

These problems which arise out of the inquiry made by the Sub-Committee of the Welsh Land Commission into the area of Central Wales are intense problems in that area, but they are not peculiar to it. As I well know, some of the problems extend into south-west Shropshire which adjoins that area. I know it, because I know both the area under review in Wales and also my own area in Shropshire. The problem is not very different from that in similar places in the North of Wales and the North of England, the only difference being that in those places the countryside is more likely to be rescued by cultural people who will make it into a beauty spot, which I feel is not possible in this area of Central Wales.

Perhaps one can approach the problem from another angle. One can start by saying, as did my noble friend Lord Merthyr, that a great deal more of hill land ought to be planted than is planted now. He was anxious that stronger sanctions should be taken, on the same lines, I gathered, as those in the Agriculture Act, 1947, to make the owners of land plant these dingles which cannot be used for anything else. I would go with the noble Lord a long way there, but I would say that it becomes feasible from the practical point of view only if we can make sure that the rabbits do not come back (if they do, it is no good having these plantations on ordinary land) and if we carry out the planning on a proper basis. I think those two things go together. Perhaps the way to handle this problem in the Central Wales area is to put it the other way round and to say that we should make the best use of the land which can be worked for agriculture or be made into proper grassland, and then take the rest of the land which cannot be worked by a tractor—land on which a tractor would fall over and very likely kill its man—and turn over those hillsides to forestry as quickly as possible, either under good private ownership or else under the Forestry Commission. The rest of the land should be got back, because there is a sufficient depth of soil on most of those hills for proper grassland, if farming methods which correspond to modern needs and to the needs of the particular case were employed.

All these proposals are very easy to make on a July afternoon in your Lordships' House. They will, of course, involve a great deal of planning in all sorts of directions. It will mean cutting across the present boundaries of owner-shin and "pushing about" a number of landowners and tenants, because, if I read the excellent Report, the Blue Book, aright—and I should like to say what an admirable Report I think it is, not merely for what it says, but for the way in which it is presented—it is clear that any future combination and interlinking of agriculture and forestry in an area like that will necessitate giving the countryside a totally different face from that it has now. The estate boundaries and farm boundaries cannot be the same, and, what is even more important, I think the type of farming will have to be totally different.

In the Report and in the White Paper—particularly in the White Paper—a good deal of attention is drawn to the need to make proper use of the advice of the county agricultural committees in getting the benefit of the marginal grants, the advisory service, and all the rest of it. The same thing can be done in forestry by making full use of the services of the Forestry Commission. But to suppose that that is going to be done under the present conditions of farming there, and to suppose that anything like all the people who are farming there now will have the necessary education and background to be able to carry through a problem of that sort, would be very starry-eyed indeed. While we are about it, it would be just as well to go the whole length and set up a completely new pattern, because any half measure in an area like that would be unsatisfactory all round. It would be unsatisfactory to the Minister of Agriculture, unsatisfactory to the Forestry Commission, unsatisfactory to the county people, and unsatisfactory to the people who are going to live there. On the other hand, if the problem is tackled on the lines which seem to be envisaged in the White Paper, there will then be the basis of co-operation of all sorts of people.

I have not yet mentioned the electricity authorities, the local authorities or the county agricultural committees, who will have to come in in a fairly big way to see that the electricity and water gets there. Of course, my noble friend Lord Merthyr is quite right in saying that we should not shed too many tears if some place which need not be inhabited actually becomes depopulated. But if the countryside is going to work at all, there has to be a certain amount of accommodation in these places for the forestry population, and also the agricultural population. If these people are to be kept—and they are essential, and should not be allowed to go away—then how is it expected that they will stay there unless they have at least electricity and water? The local authorities—and I do not mean the county agricultural committees; I mean the district councils—who administer the Water Acts, have their part to play, and I hope that all concerned will see that they play it. Then we shall begin to have a picture of something which will be not only useful, but possible as well.

But although things may be useful, they are not necessarily possible. We have to change the present idea of farming, the idea of a man with a flock of sheep having the hill land because grassland management is impossible under these conditions. There will have to be some alternative to the prevailing idea that the only way to keep body and soul together is to milk enough cows to get the monthly milk cheque. In a part of South Shropshire a great deal of reclamation has been carried out, because a number of bigger farmers living some distance away have thought it worth while to buy or take the tenancies of the hill farms, reclaim them on proper lines and with proper "know-how" and use them as subsidiary farms to carry their sheep and store cattle while they get their milk cheque from more suitable farms down the valley. That is the sort of pattern that I, as a neighbour of that Central Wales area, can see in my mind's eye. I feel that the White Paper is a step towards it and that this is a combined operation between forestry and agriculture. It will make no sense unless, so to speak, we go back in that area to number one, start again and use the area for forestry or agriculture according as seems best in each case. I should like to wish the Minister and those who are associated with him in Central Wales the best of luck because, if they carry through this scheme, there will be wide repercussions for good in many other places as well.

4.52 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN)

My Lords, first of all I should like to add my humble congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, on his maiden speech. I have had the privilege of knowing him for quite a few years and am happy to welcome him among us to-day. I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for drawing attention to these important and complex problems which we have in Wales. They are problems which the Government have constantly in mind and to which we have given a great deal of thought. Some of the results of that thought have been published in the White Paper, to which the noble Lord referred, which was published on Monday.

In their Report the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission say this: The development of afforestation properly integrated with agriculture will strengthen the social and economic fabric of the countryside and assist materially in the rehabilitation of the upland areas". I cannot say too strongly how much we agree with that statement. We fully recognise the valuable contribution which forestry can make towards greater prosperity and a new economic stability in these areas. Although forestry in its present form is comparatively new to Wales—there is not that long tradition or those vast areas of privately-owned woodlands such as we have in Scotland—nevertheless, considerable areas have been planted with trees over the last thirty years. This has already had a beneficial effect on the economy.

The Forestry Commission's plantations in Wales already cover about 185,000 acres—this, I think, is rather a larger figure than the noble Lord gave. During the last forest year, 2¾ million cubic feet of timber was produced in that area, and we expect that the amount will increase to about 4 million in the mid-1960's and to about 7 million cubic feet by the mid-1970's. Employment has increased and will undoubtedly increase according to the further production Just after this last war there were 1,300 workers employed by the Forestry Commission in Wales. There are now 3,300. This last figure does not include the employees of timber merchants and, others working in and around the Commission forests. Employment under that heading has also increased substantially since the war. Developments in the industrial valleys of South Wales are, I feel, particularly pleasing. The Commission now have there some 50,000 acres. The work they have done will do much to improve the beauty of the landscape, which has been so badly scarred by industrial activities. Even more important, the forests provide for these mainly industrial areas alternative and refreshing employment which also gives scope for victims of industrial disease.

Much has been achieved so far, but can assure the House that we are by no means complacent. I agree with several noble Lords in wanting more forests to reinvigorate the life of rural areas of Wales by diversifying and increasing the opportunities for employment of young people who would otherwise be forced to leave the land. I must emphasise that we are not thinking in terms of vast stretches of "alien conifers", blanketing the hills and taking up land which could and should be used for farming. I believe the right way to proceed is by the closest possible integration of agriculture and forestry for the benefit of both. Trees can provide shelter and timber for the farmers' needs. Forestry can bring new blood and new possibilities of employment, with opportunities for seasonal exchanges of labour with agriculture. The services which forestry needs can often be planned so as to help the farming community as well.

A few months ago my noble friend Lord Radnor and I did an exercise in this kind of planning when we visited Pwllpeiran in Cardiganshire. This property, which adjoins large areas already acquired by the Forestry Commission, is being developed as a joint hill farming and forestry project, so as to make the fullest use of the better grazing land, together with the unplantable tops of the neighbouring hills. The more remote slopes will be afforested. There will also be several plantations designed specifically for sheltering grazing land. I do not say that this is the first case of integration of forestry and agriculture, but it is the first opportunity of doing it, so to speak, on a Government basis. I think it augurs well for the future.

There will, of course, always be scope for large blocks of forest land in the more remote hill areas. But the pattern in Wales, and elsewhere, is becoming more and more one of fairly small blocks on poorer, less accessible or more exposed parts, with farming continuing on the better land which has, in turn, benefited from the shelter and improved services that forestry often brings. I cannot emphasise too much that there is no inherent conflict between agriculture and forestry; they are completely complementary and in no way antagonistic.

My Lords, there are, I think, a number of people in the farming world who do not yet appreciate what the Forestry Commission are prepared to do for their neighbours. I am going to mention a few of the things which are referred to in the White Paper. If I may say so, I am a little surprised that no mention has been made in the debate of a number of new developments which have been announced and which I feel augur extremely well for the farmers in the future. First of all, as regards fencing, where the Commission have made plantations on hill land and upland grazing they will maintain the fences which they have erected or have maintained for the protection of young plantations, even when these fences are no longer required for that purpose, so long as it is essential in the interests of stock grazing on adjoining land. Fences will not, of course, be retained where neighbouring farmers do not want them—for example, fences round small blocks of maturing trees which could give valuable shelter to stock. These arrangements will not apply to roadside fences or to fences for which adjoining owners or tenants have a written contractual liability. Nor do they imply any legal liability on the Commission which would not otherwise rest on them. The Commission hope that this policy will be regarded as an act of good will to the hill farming community. I feel that this is a considerable step forward. It is a point which I am sure will appeal to all noble Lords who are interested in forestry in Wales—every time you talk to anybody it is a question of fences, and I think this will solve it once and for all.

Another thing the Forestry Commission will do is to plan their roads, so far as possible, so that they will be of service to farms and to sheepwalks. They will make their drainage and road-making equipment available to their farming neighbours whenever they possibly can. They will also release workers whenever possible, particularly at harvest time, to help their neighbours. They are prepared to burn a protective strip, at their own cost, on their neighbour's land, if he prefers not to take the risk himself. In fact, this is nothing new, but it is a thing which has not been appreciated by the neighbours of the Forestry Commission as a whole, and I think they would be well advised to make fuller use of it. The Commission are also always ready to plan their planting, whenever practicable, in such a way that it provides the maximum protection to neighbouring farmlands, and they will continue to leave in agriculture such parts of land which they acquire which are more suitable for that purpose.

My Lords, I am sure you will agree that I have given a considerable list of things which the Forestry Commission are doing and are prepared to do to help their neighbours. I hope that this will go to show that the charges of dictatorial methods which before now have been levelled against the Commission, and also charges of unhelpfulness, are completely unjustified.

The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, raised the point that the Commission are not making the fullest use of the land they have. Frankly, I think this is rather a surprising charge, and I doubt whether it can really be substantiated. Any organisation which is carrying out a large-scale planting programme—after all, the Commission's programme in Great Britain is on a scale which has never before been known in this country—is obliged to have a reserve of something like six times the annual programme. At least, that is what they would like; but as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, our annual reserves at the moment are barely four.

The reasons for holding this apparently large quantity of land over and above what is actually being planted are inescapable. First of all, the land is often tenanted when it is bought, and it is neither easy nor desirable that the tenant should be dispossessed indiscriminately. Secondly, labour is not by any means always immediately available for every new area—it may be necessary first to build houses or to complete planting on adjoining blocks, so that the men from there can be used on the new area. It is perfectly possible to take a large area, say, 1.000 acres, and decide to plant it in one year. But in order to do that one has to take on a large staff, a large proportion of which, once the planting has been completed, would have to be dismissed; whereas, if the planting is done steadily, at an annual rate of say 200 acres a year, the same staff can complete the whole operation.

In any acquisition by the Commission there are always likely to be unplantable areas, and often, to the layman's eye, these may look no different from areas which have been successfully planted. In any case, as I have already said, it is the practice to leave unplanted the areas which are best suited for retaining in agriculture. I think I should mention here that in the investigation area only 5 per cent, of Forestry Commission land was, in fact, found to be sterilised, and that was composed largely of bogs, ponds, and rock faces. In fact, it was almost entirely land of little or no grazing value. Modern techniques of planting are constantly extending the range of land which can he used for planting and, raising the planting line further up the hillside; but, inevitably, a forest area must include some lard which cannot be used.

The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and my noble friend Lord Merthyr also referred to the question of small areas. It has been said on many occasions, although not to-day, that small areas are not taken up by the Forestry Commission. The position is really this. In recent times they have acquired a large number of small blocks. For instance, last year, in tile total acquisitions in Wales, the average was 100 acres, and there were many examples of areas of under 20 acres being acquired. Obviously, the Commission cannot commit themselves to take every area, however small and badly, placed: they must take into account the additional cost in planting and managing small isolated areas, and in building access roads and fencing. They have also to consider the nature of the soil and the aspect of the site in assessing the possible quality of the crop to come. But subject to this, the Commission will always be prepared to consider planting small areas, so long as there is a reasonable prospect of producing useful timber at a cost which is not excessive.

Several noble Lords raised questions about the workers in the Forestry Commission. If I may first deal with the ordinary worker, I can assure noble Lords that the Forestry Commission would like nothing better than to take all the workers they need from the locality in which they set up their forests, provided that it does not interfere with agriculture or with other, already established, industries. But precisely because rural depopulation has been going on for a long time, and because forestry requires more men to a given acreage than farming, some workers must be brought in from outside the immediate area of the forest. That does not mean, however, that they need come from outside Wales; and though the Commission do not keep any records which would permit them to prove the fact, they believe that the vast majority of their ordinary workers in Wales are Welshmen. I certainly could not go into the different categories of Welshmen that have been mentioned this afternoon. I use the term in its broad sense.

As noble Lords have said, the problem of Welshmen in relation to the supervisory staff, foresters and district officers is, from the Welshmen's point of view, unsatisfactory, but I can assure noble Lords that that is by no means the wish of the Commission. They maintain their Forestry Training School at Gwydyr at which there is ample room for Welshmen to be taught, and they do all they can to encourage Welsh men and boys working for them to attend this school. Also, as noble Lords have said, the University at Bangor prepares men for the grade of district officer. Again, my information is that there is ample opportunity for as many Welshmen as would like to go. The real trouble is that there are just not enough Welshmen with the necessary qualifications applying. I hope that the Appointments Board of the University of Wales will take note of what has been said this afternoon. Anything which the noble Lords, Lord Ogmore and Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, can do to spread abroad amongst the Welsh people the fact that there is a great future in this occupation, would be of great service to the Welsh.

I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, that there is no possible foundation for any thoughts which some of his friends appear to have that there is a lack of future prospects or security of employment in the Commission. At the moment they are in a position to say that they cannot take too many Welshmen. Senior officers have secure jobs and pensions, and the ordinary workers, after a very few years, are eligible for established positions with a pension. I do not think they can ask for greater security than that.

As so often happens, the talk this afternoon has been largely of the Forestry Commission, but I should not like it thought that Her Majesty's Government or the Commission regard the State forests as the only forests worth talking about. Private woodlands and their owners have a great part to play in reducing dependence on foreign supplies, a subject on which several noble Lords touched and which obviously is of vital importance. Our aim is to have 5 million acres of productive woodland by the end of the century. We hope that 3 million acres of this will be provided by afforesta- tion of bare land, almost all of it State-owned, and the remaining 2 million acres will consist of existing woodlands. Thus, even at the end of the century, private woodland owners will be more than a mere appendage to the great State enterprise. To-day, if we consider production and acreage of private woodland as a whole, they are quite definitely the senior partner.

The situation as regards private forests in Wales is not altogether happy. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, who said that of 200,000 acres of private woodland in the Principality only about half are productive to-day. We hope that owners who cannot themselves bring their woods into full production will dispose of them to the Forestry Commission; but from every point of view it is much better if they can and will do so themselves. One of the difficulties is that the average area of woodland in one ownership in Wales is only about thirty acres, which is too small for the employment of a skilled forester. I was delighted to hear the remarks of my noble friend Lord Merthyr on co-operation. At the moment we have five co-operatives in Wales which have been set up by enlightened woodland owners, with help from the Forestry Commission, and of 1,200 acres planted in private woodlands last year these cooperatives planted about 300 acres, or some 27 per cent. For beginnings, that is not too bad.

Several noble Lords talked about the lack of hardwoods and the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, felt that we could easily have too much of them. It is no good planting the hardwoods on land which is best suited to growing softwoods, and generally the greater proportion of the acquisitions of the Commission have been of land most suitable for growing softwoods. But I can assure noble Lords that they plant annually a considerable acreage of mixed and hardwood plantations. I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, will feel that that covers his point about replanting of war-time fellings. Perhaps if I enlarge on it a little I can take in the point of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, on surveys. The Commission have carried out a number of detailed surveys and in time will cover the whole Principality with the object of getting from owners clear indications as to whether they will replant land themselves, under a dedication or approved scheme, or whether they will sell or lease their land to the Commission. We hope that in that way we shall before long get all this land back into operation.

The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, raised the question of whether the Committee referred to in the White Paper would have executive powers. I cannot do better than quote the White Paper: It will be charged not only with co-ordination of the detailed implementation of Government policy but also with ensuring that action for the development of agriculture and forestry and the provision of basic services is pushed ahead as fast as possible. It will in any case be asked to report regularly to the Ministers concerned.

LORD OGMORE

May I ask the noble Earl if those reports, made at regular intervals, will be available to Parliament?

EARL. ST. ALDWYN

I am afraid I cannot assure the noble Lord that they will be. Frankly, I should think that the answer is probably. "No". Certainly I should say they will not be available in their interim form. They may be consolidated into one Report at longer intervals. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, would like, as I understand it, to see the chairman of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire and also an agriculturist added to this local Committee. It is intended to keep this Committee as small as possible, in order to get more rapid action. I will certainly draw the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend, and will write to the noble Lord later on. My noble friend Lord Merthyr raised the question of pulp mills, and asked whether there was any possibility of setting up more of them in the near future. The position is that there is one being set up on Merseyside at the moment. But it is in the earliest stages, and until it has been in operation for a reasonable length of time it is impossible to forecast what the future will he as regards other such mills.

Several noble Lords have rightly stressed the contribution which forestry can make towards a new prosperity in the Welsh uplands. The White Paper mentions a number of other things which should also help. The basic need is to create more stable conditions and help the rural economy to adapt itself to changing circumstances. I should like for a moment to touch on that word "stable", concerning which some question was raised by Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. As I see it, it does not mean what he was suggesting. He seemed to think that it meant the maintenance of the status quo. I read it as meaning a sense of security. I think I would interpret it more as referring to a thriving and prosperous area.

On the agricultural side, we intend to encourage the development of economic and well-equipped farms based on the type of farming best suited to the upland areas—in other words, the rearing of cattle and sheep. The White Paper explains how we propose to go about this without resorting in any way to compulsion. Wherever appropriate we shall encourage the amalgamation of upland farms to form viable agricultural units, and we shall pay substantial grants towards the modernisation of such units suitable for livestock rearing. I should stress that these units must be economically viable. The standard to be applied under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts is that the holding must be able to yield to an occupier a net income at least equivalent to that of an agricultural worker. That is not the same standard as was suggested by the Welsh Sub-Commission. Much help in this direction has already been given under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts. In fact work amounting to £3¾ million has been grant-aided in Wales. We have announced that we intend to extend until 1963 the period in which schemes for improving livestock rearing land can he submitted, and also to increase by £5 million the limit on grants for that purpose. The White Paper also deals with such basic services as housing, water supplies, electricity and roads, the steady improvement of which should do much to raise living standards in these upland areas.

I think it is important that the general picture of rural development in Wales should be kept under constant review. My Department is not the only one concerned. My right honourable friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs keeps a very close watch on the development of Government policy in rural Wales and is in a position to ensure co-ordination of the work which is being done. My noble friend Lord Mancroft presides over periodical conferences of the heads of Government Offices in Wales. But this is a large body with wide terms of reference, and we do not think that it can give the necessary detailed attention to the problems of rural Wales. Therefore, we are proposing to set up this small Standing Committee of the Departments mainly concerned, to co-ordinate and ensure that action for the development of agriculture and forestry and the provision of basic services is pushed ahead as fast as possible.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

The noble Earl is going to deal with the Welsh-speaking question?

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I am coming to that in a minute. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, raised the question why I was replying to this debate and not my noble friend Lord Mancroft.

LORD OGMORE

I want to be particularly careful to make this clear. I certainly do not intend any discourtesy to the noble Earl, who has been most helpful all through. I did not mean to suggest that Lord Mancroft ought to reply instead of the noble Earl, but I would ask why he is not replying as well as the noble Earl.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

For one thing, I did not feel that we wanted to weary your Lordships for too long. And, before I forget it, may I offer the House Lord Mancroft's apologies for not being here at the end of this debate? The Home Secretary, as Minister for Welsh Affairs, naturally takes the keenest interest in the subject which is being debated in your Lordships' House this afternoon. His interest springs from his duty to keep himself informed of Welsh aspects of affairs, and to speak in Cabinet on behalf of special interests and aspirations in Wales. The subject of this debate is forestry and rural depopulation, and the Minister who has executive responsibilities in respect of both of these matters is my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, the Home Secretary, has, of course, no executive powers in these matters and no direct responsibility to Parliament. While, of course, close consultation on all these matters goes on almost daily between the Home Office and my own Ministry I am sure that it is right that I should be replying to the debate as having the direct executive responsibility. If the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, feels that that is wrong, I think that perhaps he ought to put down another motion dealing with a Welsh Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, raised the question of how many of the members of this small Committee, could, in fact, speak Welsh. The representative of my Department can speak Welsh fluently. The representative of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is not very fluent at the moment, but is learning fast. The representative of the Forestry Commission does not speak Welsh but he has had nearly thirty years experience of Wales. Noble Lords might say that he should have learned Welsh in that time, but I think he feels it better to keep a detached approach. I assure noble Lords that the matter is well taken care of. I do not think that I have missed out any of the noble Lord's points. I thank the noble Lord for raising these matters to-day, and I am sure that your Lordships appreciate all that has been said.

5.31 p.m.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, for the careful and full reply he has given? I assure him once more that we should have been bitterly disappointed if he had not addressed your Lordships to-day, but we should also have liked to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. May I also thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this discussion? Many of them have travelled a long distance and come here at considerable inconvenience, and I am grateful to them all for speaking in what, to me, has been an interesting debate, which I am sure will be read and the wireless reports of it listened to in Wales with a good deal of interest. I hope that it will prove valuable.

I should like to add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, on his maiden speech. We look forward to many similar contributions that he will be making. It is especially pleasing that the noble Lord has thought fit to intervene in a Welsh debate because he comes from one of the oldest Welsh families. I have often thought that the old nobility of Wales have not played in the past the part they could and should have done in Welsh affairs, and I am glad to see that many Welsh noblemen do take an interest to-day.

The noble Lord is descended from Rhys ap Thomas, whose contribution to the Battle of Bosworth undoubtedly won the throne for Henry Tudor and thereby made a great contribution not only to Welsh history but also to English history. Without the action of Rhys ap Thomas before and at Bosworth, there possibly might have been no Chamber for us to debate in to-day and no Parliament, in its modern form, for us to take part in. So the noble Lord is welcome in our debates, not only as a Welshman but also as a descendant of one of the founders of our modern Parliament. I do not want to discourage the noble Lord by criticising what he said but there was one matter which he mentioned—the contribution the Welsh have made to London—which, though not relevant to the debate to-day, might perhaps be gone into with profit on a future occasion. As President of the London Welsh I am aware of the contribution of the Welsh drapers, milkmen and others to London.

May I say also that I am glad to see the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, here? He is Chairman of the Forestry Commission, and though he could not speak in the debate he will have heard the points that have been made, which will no doubt register themselves upon his mind. In conclusion, I wish every success to those who have to carry out the policy of the White Paper. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.