HL Deb 12 May 1966 vol 274 cc785-8

3.13 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the number of workers employed by the Forestry Commission on whom the selective employment tax will be charged, and whether the amount paid will be refunded to the Forestry Commission, or whether their expenditure will be reduced by the amount of the tax.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET)

My Lords, the number of staff at present employed by the Forestry Commission on whom the new selective employment tax will be charged is about 13,500. The cost of the tax to be charged to the Commission will be taken into account in reviewing estimates of the annual grants-in-aid of the Forestry Fund.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, as I think this is the first Question which the noble Lord has answered in this House, may I take the opportunity of congratulating him upon his appointment to office? May I also say that I am glad to hear that the Forestry Fund, if I understand his answer right, will not be diminished as a result of this tax. Could the noble Lord say how this is done? Do the Forestry Commission pay the tax and does the Chancellor then send a cheque for an equivalent amount, or do they just agree to call it quits?

LORD KENNET

My Lords, the Forestry Commission pay the tax, and the fact that they have paid the tax will be taken into account in assessing the level of grant.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I hope that that means they will get back as much as they give, and not merely part of it. I should like to ask the noble Lord to make it clear that the tax will not be cut down. Would he also say whether the Forestry Commission have been given this good news, because last week they did not know?

LORD KENNET

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot commit the Chancellor of the Exchequer to any specific level of grant for this year to the Forestry Commission.

LORD BYERS

My Lords, does not this involve something like £750,000? Is not somebody going to lose the interest on this amount for something like six months? Who loses it?

LORD KENNET

My Lords, it is not clear at the moment what will be the position about payment of interest in the meantime.

3.15 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the estimated number of foresters in private employment on whom the selective employment tax will be charged, and what action will be taken in furtherance of the statement in paragraph 17 of the White Paper, that account will be taken of the effect of the tax in the determination of the grants to private woodland owners.]

LORD KENNET

My Lords, the best rough estimate of the number of employees in private forestry on whom the selective employment tax will be charged is about 7,000. Some account will be taken of the effect of the tax when the next review of the level of the forestry grants takes place, and the Forestry Committee of Great Britain, representing private woodland owners' organisations, will be fully consulted about the method of doing so.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government are aware that forest labour for forestry schemes in the Scottish Highlands is exceedingly hard to get and very scarce? The Government, as part of their Highlands policy—with the support of all the forestry societies in Scotland—are urging owners of land to do more planting in supplementation of the Forestry Commission's work. Is the noble Lord aware that this tax will be a very serious impediment to the carrying out of the Government's Highlands development policy?

LORD KENNET

My Lords, these factors will be taken into account during the review.

LORD INGLEWOOD

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord two questions? The first is this—and since he has referred to the question of the grants, I hope it is not unreasonable to assume that he has given this point some thought.

Could he tell us, approximately, what increase in the management grant would have to be made in order to recompense woodland owners for this charge? Secondly, would the noble Lord bear in mind that the Forestry Commission and the private woodland owners are, as it were, both friendly partners and competitors in the same industry, and it would therefore be grossly unfair if one of those partners had to carry a charge of which the other was free.

LORD KENNET

My Lords, my answer to the first question is: Not without further notice. My answer to the second question is that this is precisely the kind of thing which will be discussed in the review of the grant in the public sector and in the review to which I have just alluded as regards the private sector.

LORD AMPTHILL

My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that many privately owned woodlands have to operate sawmills as an integral part of their forestry operations? Can the Minister confirm that the workpeople employed in these sawmills—which includes sawyers, mechanics, lorry drivers and labourers—will be treated as industrial workers for the purpose of the selective employment tax?

LORD KENNET

My Lords, not without notice.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, seriously, whether the Government have thought out these matters in relation to this tax; or are they just making it up as they go along?

LORD KENNET

My Lords, of course the Government are in the process of thinking out these matters, and they are in close and continuous touch both with the Forestry Commission and with the Forestry Committee of Great Britain.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, would it not have been better to think it out before bringing in the tax?