§ 3.21 p.m.
§ LORD WISE rose to draw attention to the Report of the National Resources (Technical) Committee on Forestry, Agriculture and Marginal Land; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be known that for some time before the Recess this Motion stood on the Order Paper in the name of the late Earl Jowitt. After his death, it was thought on this side of the House that the Motion should stand and be moved as a tribute to his memory. The original date was fixed for to-morrow, but was altered in order that our discussion should follow the tributes which have just been paid on all sides of the House to a well-loved and very loyal colleague and outstanding Member of the House of Lords. I feel sure that this arrangement is acceptable to noble Lords, and I hope that no inconvenience has been caused to anyone by the alteration of date.
§ Just prior to the Recess, and possibly on one of the last occasions on which he was present, Lord Jowitt came and sat on this Bench for a short time. We spoke of his Motion and arranged that I should support him and follow as a later speaker on this side. His mantle has thus, in this particular matter only, fallen upon me, and in his memory I will do all I can to deal with the Report. I cannot hope to reach his eloquence, 537 fullness of speech or interpretation of the Report, but I am encouraged by a personal feeling that he is with us in spirit, and a knowledge that our discussion at this time would have met with his approval. His interest and past work in connection with afforestation are well known, and he would undoubtedly have called attention to that side of the Report. I know he was anxious that the programme set by the Forestry Commission should be carried out and, to that end, that its; present momentum should be accelerated, if possible, and the difficulties which beset it overcome. He realised, as we all do, that forestry, with its allied industries, can play an important rôle in the national economy. This rôle, unfortunately, is little spoken of or understood in everyday life.
§ At this point, I should like to voice a note of thanks to Professor Zuckerman and his able and distinguished colleagues for their interesting and admirable Report. It would appear sometimes that neither Parliament nor the public fully appreciate the time and labour spent by a Committee or Commission upon the preparation and submission of a Report on subjects and matters referred to them. It is easy for Parliament or a Minister to draw up the terms of reference or send out letters of appointment, but quite a different matter for members of such a Committee to spend hours and days in collecting and considering data, examining experts as witnesses, and then tabulating and explaining conclusions at which they have arrived. This shows great public spirit and tenacity of purpose which can be admired.
§ The Zuckerman Report is excellent in its contents, paragraphing and set-up, and as a review of current policy in the use of land and its future possibilities and capabilities, and we owe the Members of that Committee a debt of gratitude for services rendered to Parliament and to all who are interested in the subject which they so ably cover. I readily acknowledge it. and I am sure we all agree. The Committee were obviously set a very difficult task. 'In effect, so far as I can see, the task was this: to discover what steps, if any, it will be possible to take to increase afforestation in large or small areas, to make even continuing or more productive use of marginal land; and whether the integration of agriculture and forestry can be carried out profitably in 538 the interests of the nation, the landowner, and the land worker.
§ No Report has ever received universal acceptance and approval, and it may well be that noble Lords can think of omissions or items of disagreement or which need explanation in this one. It is easy to be critical or controversial, but it is not my intention to be either. l feel that the Report on its merits deserves kindly and friendly consideration, especially on this particular day as we draw to the end of this Parliamentary Session. My object is to call attention to some matters referred to in the Report—I cannot cover the whole—and to ascertain the views of Her Majesty's Government on the possibility of any implementation of the conclusions of the Committee in the immediate future. Our discussion will no doubt be followed by many outside the walls of this House who are interested or whose livelihood depends upon the success of our afforestation projects or determination to make the best, possible use of the marginal areas of Britain which are at present falling short in production but which could probably be made more fertile.
§ Neither the late Earl nor I have been living in counties which can be considered marginal, but we have this in common: that we were both residing within easy reach of Thetford Chase and the Breckland of Norfolk. He was to the south and I was to the north, and I am sure that both of us would have paid our tribute to the work of the Forestry Commission in that particular area. Speakers with greater knowledge of marginal areas will be following me, and I hope that we shall hear something of great interest to us in regard to these areas.
§ Recently we have considered two kindred subjects, namely, forestry in Wales, and the Watson Report on the marketing of woodland timber. Although these naturally bear relation to matters which arise in the Zuckerman Report they were fairly fully covered in those discussions, particularly in regard to the Welsh debate. Much similarity occurs between that discussion and the one we are dealing with to-day. It is possible also that another forestry discussion will take place shortly in your Lordships' House, and the impact of the European Free Trade Area conditions upon imports of forestry products may then be 539 considered. In looking up the Hansard reports of the debate in your Lordships' House on the Watson Committee's Report I noticed that doubts were expressed by noble Lords about the benefits which might be lost to forestry by European Free Trade Area conditions. I hope that all the primary products of the land, whether they are agricultural products or timber products, will receive similar treatment.
§ From the forestry angle the Committee draw attention to the slow development of forestry resources in Great Britain. I think that that is right, and the nation as a whole must accept some responsibility for it. Even in this advancing scientific age, when none can tell what our future requirements may be in any particular product, there is a lack of appreciation of the need for steps to be taken to increase our products of timber. As a nation we are not forestry-minded. Many look upon our woodlands and forests merely as things of beauty in our countryside, as places for rambles and picnics and preserves for shooting parties, and very infrequently as places where one can see stacks of pit-props and poles waiting to be transported and turned into money. Never a moment is spent in considering the labour, time and expense which have been incurred in establishing the plantations, or of woods growing slowly to maturity, unnoticed by the casual or the constant passer-by. To many forestry is an unknown industry. Whatever may be substituted for timber in building or for other constructive purposes in the future, it is clear that timber products and by-products in various forms will be required.
§ The Committee devote several paragraphs to the problems of the utilisation of thinnings and other timber, not only for mining purposes but for pulping, new types of fibre building boards and other products. Advances have recently been made in providing mills with new plant and methods to supply the growing requirements of industry and thus utilise the output of the plantations of the Forestry Commission. This is helpful and commendable, and the Minister may be able to tell us something of the encouragement which is being and will be given to such projects if required. They are essential as absorbing our home 540 timber output and as a step to the safeguarding of prosperity. There is reference in paragraph 98 of the Report to an investigation to be undertaken by the European Productivity Agency of O.E.E.C. as to the size a mill should be to prove economic. This is mentioned again in paragraph 104, and it is hoped that this survey is going forward. Its findings may determine future programmes of the Forestry Commission and industrial woodland owners.
§ In 1955 pulp imports cost us over £100 million. Any appreciable saving by home production would be well worth while. Perhaps the Minister also has some information he can give us as regards progress in this particular matter. It is pointed out in no uncertain manner how low our home production of timber falls in comparison with the value of imports. Ten per cent. only of our requirements is home grown. And even if the Forestry Commission's target of 5 million acres of mature and productive forest is achieved in the time allotted during this century, we shall then be producing only one-third of our present requirements. Development in industry may call for more homegrown timber and timber products. Again, our future national economic position may call for greater efforts to counteract possible increasing import commitments and relieve our dollar and other liabilities. Import savings from forestry products can help in this direction.
§ Timber production is essentially a longterm affair, and to meet the calls of the future planning and planting must take place now. The planting of generations ago came to our aid in two world wars during which our resources were obviously lessened. In a large wood which belongs to me I remember the fine timber trees of fifty years ago and now often come across the aftermath of the considerable fellings of 1914–18. That possibly may not be peculiar to that particular wood but is similar in many other woods all over the country. I hope that such wartime fellings in our woods will not again be required in our lifetime or that of our children's children. But we must not overlook the experience of two world wars. Our future needs—and these must be great—are fully recognised by the Committee; and the difficulties and delays in acquiring suitable land for Forestry Commission purposes, the natural hesitation on the part of private landowners to 541 embark upon uncertain financial operations necessary for large-scale afforestation, reclaiming and replanting scrub, overgrown hazel underwood or felled woodland, and the satisfactory disposal of forest products, are touched upon and considered.
§ Co-operative afforestation which brings the landowner and the Forestry Commission together receives commendation by the Committee, and in paragraph 136, page 40, the basis of a scheme to bring both parties together is propounded. It seems in effect to be this: an agency scheme whereby the Forestry Commission supervise and carry out the planting and receive the appropriate Government grants or part payment; and eventually, when the sale of the produce comes about, the capital expended, plus interest, would be repaid to the Commission, and the balance, substantial or otherwise, would then be paid to the owner at that time of the plantation. There is in all this, from the owner's point of view, an element of uncertainty in the field of the finance, but it may put into operation successful planting which otherwise would not take place by reason of expenditure to the landowner. I expect that other noble Lords may wish to comment on this particular project.
§ It is not generally realised that, even now, forestry operations provide steady employment in rural areas. In addition to the many foresters and their assistants employed in private woods and estate yards, the number of men under the control of the Forestry Commission in forests and nurseries is over 13,000. The Financial Statement of the Forestry Commission for 1956 shows an expenditure of nearly £8 million upon forest operations for the year; thus the spending power of the employees in rural areas is significant. This sum does not conclude the tale, as local timber merchants. operating in home-grown timber, have their own gangs of experienced and skilled men earning wages commensurate with the nature of their employment, and the saw mills in country towns find work and wages for craftsmen and others, as also do pulping and other works in districts in which they are to be found.
§ The wage bill of the industry, therefore, assumes fairly high figures—small, possibly, in comparison with the wage bill of 542 agriculture and other industries, but extremely useful in keeping rural areas going. Nearly 5,000 houses and holdings have been provided by the Forestry Commission for its workers, and in many places community centres have been formed, social life and activities fostered, transport improved by better roads, and in the aggregate of its employment and welfare services lies the strength and importance of the industry. There is great virtue in carrying into operation projects which not only are of national economic value, but bring homes and communal life to those engaged in them.
§ The land surface of Great Britain extends to 56 million acres. About half of this is cultivated farming land, and of the other half 16 million acres comprise rough grazing and marginal land, and 4 million acres are woodland. This woodland represents only about 7 per cent. of the land area, and is very small in comparison with percentages in other European countries. At page 15 of the Report noble Lords will find a Table, No. 4, showing that, so far as this country is concerned, we are beaten in percentages of woodland area in comparison with our land area, by, I believe, every other country in Europe. It is with the 16 million acres of rough grazing and marginal land that we are mainly concerned to-day. I have already referred to the programme of the Forestry Commission to increase their area to 5 million acres of well-managed productive forest. Their additional area must come from marginal land. Already they are falling behind schedule, and the area acquired annually has fallen short of requirements. Moreover, their planting each year is diminishing. The significance of this will be apparent—it is a drift in the wrong direction. If we are to make a success of national and private afforestation schemes, and are to accelerate our planting and production, we must find a solution to the problem of the shortage of available and suitable land for the purpose. Solutions can generally be found for every problem, and this one cannot be allowed to beat us.
§ The Zuckerman Committee express fully in their Report their views on how this can be accomplished. It is clear to them that it is possible to integrate forestry and agriculture on marginal land, to the benefit of both these rural 543 industries. They advocate a joint effort—an intermixing of the two. Naturally, the Forestry Commission seek large areas for their purpose, and whilst realising that that should be the primary aim, the Committee suggest the bringing into being of shelter belts and smaller plantations, useful at all times as productive measures for homesteads, land conservation, and improvement of stock grazing. The Committee support the view that such planting would increase the stock-carrying capacity of surrounding land and increase food production. Stock, particularly sheep from the hills, are essential for ensuring a regular supply at the proper season for lowland farmers. Examples are given in the Report of successful undertakings. I therefore put the suggestion to landlords of large areas that similar satisfying success might come to them through such co-operation with the Forestry Commission.
§ We cannot afford to delay our endeavour to improve the productive ability, small though it may be at present, of 30 per cent. of our land area now classified as marginal land, and any decline in this surely means the lowering of the standard of living of those who are dependent upon the results of their labours. It is thought that in some cases afforestation pure and simple would be more profitable than stock grazing. But it would seem to me personally that lands which can adequately serve food production should be so used. With mutual good will there need not be any confliction of interests. We must all be anxious that there should be no lessening of employment, wage earning and social amenities in those areas of Britain which are remote from the towns and cities. The Zuckerman Committee point out that the drift from the land in those parts can be stayed only by the security of a congenial job in forestry or agriculture.
§ A considerable amount of public money finds its way through various Departments and the Forestry Commission into the areas of marginal lands, as indeed it does also into more fertile districts, and the fullest co-operation be- 544 tween the responsible bodies is advocated. State money thus allocated to the twin industries of the land will not be misused but will safeguard part of our national assets and improve their capital value. The lands of Britain are held in trust for the benefit of the nation, and their improvement is of the greatest possible importance, as also is the welfare of the people living on the land. I am sure that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that money spent in supporting stock production and afforestation activities on marginal land is, from the national point of view, money well spent.
§ My Lords, as I feared when I first considered what points in the Report I should touch upon, I have in no way been able to do justice to its comprehensiveness. I am sure that other speakers will fill in my blanks. I may have been guilty of some platitudes but I have, I hope, opened a way for discussion, and all such Reports should receive serious consideration in this House. I have also given the Minister the opportunity—which I believe he will welcome—of stating the reactions of Her Majesty's Government to the suggestions which the Committee have set out and elaborated. There are in this House many noble Lords who have spent their lives among the lands and woods of Britain, and who have a love of country life, with its peaceful and satisfying surroundings, who will read with great interest the Zuckerman Report and the Record of our discussion on it. Many have their roots in the soil and are truly men of the woods and the land—a very happy combination. Their concern, which is also mine, is not only that forestry should make its full contribution to the welfare of the nation but that the marginal lands of Britain should become more fertile and should take a more important place in maintaining agricultural prosperity and ever-increasing food production. If integration as outlined by the Committee will help us. then let us take steps to support such a programme. I beg to move for Papers.