HL Deb 16 April 1980 vol 408 cc379-98

8 p.m.

Lord SOMERS

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Before I go any further, I should like to thank all those who have helped me with their advice in constructing this Bill. In particular, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, who I am very glad to see is joining in this debate, for the tremendous help that he has given me. I should also like to apologise for the fact that unfortunately I missed the debate on 26th March on the Motion on forestry of the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton. However, I have read the debate very carefully and I am glad to say that I agree with practically everything that was said.

However, this Bill attacks a slightly different area of tree preservation. Its main object is to preserve the slower growing trees, the hardwood trees—mainly deciduous ones—which, of course, are thinning out owing to the simple fact that they are slower growing. There is an increasing unwillingness on the part of both local authorities and private owners to plant trees which they know perfectly well they will never sec come to maturity. We are very fortunate that our forefathers were more farseeing than that. They planted these trees, which they knew perfectly well they would never see or enjoy, for us and for our enjoyment and we should be grateful to them. We should do the same for our descendants. These trees include such well-known trees as the oak, the ash, the beech, et cetera, which are all well-known deciduous trees and very much-loved features of our English countryside.

However, I must confess that love of the beauty of these trees is not the only motive behind this Bill. It is certainly one, and an important one, but there is also another point. In a small way one of my hobbies is carpentry, and I have been shocked at the fact that today it is more or less impossible for the ordinary person to obtain hardwood. As a boy, I remember the days when one could buy well-seasoned English oak from the nearest timber merchant. But now that is quite impossible. Even wood specialists apparently cannot get it, and although I imagine that it is available in some way to furniture makers, for the ordinary person it is quite hopeless—one cannot get it at all.

Of course, I have heard various reasons for that. I believe that a good deal of our hardwood is being exported. If that is so, surely that is all the more reason why we should plant more of those trees. I have heard another reason: that a great deal of it is used for purposes of veneer, which is, of course, now becoming very popular. That surely is another reason why we should plant more of these trees.

Many will ask why I have directed the Bill only against local authorities. The reason is simply that the private owner is very hard indeed to describe in a Bill. He ranges from the man who owns a large forestry estate and runs it on a commercial basis, to the owner of a suburban garden with a few trees in it. Incidentally, I should say that I belong to the latter category. But sometimes I have been shattered to see the way in which some of my neighbours treat their trees; they obviously know nothing whatever about them. Therefore, I think that it would he next door to impossible to get any legislation which would cover such a very wide category.

I must apologise for one criticism which I hear has been levelled against the Bill. It is that the Bill is very badly drafted. May I say that I wholeheartedly agree with that; it is shockingly drafted. However, it has many points which I have every intention of correcting when and if we come to a Committee stage. I should like to give your Lordships a few of the details which I intend to alter. In Clause 1, line 10, I am told by experts that I should have referred to "genus" and "species" rather than "species" and "variety". In Clause 2, line 5, after the word, "places", I intend to put, … on land owned and administered by the said local authority", because, of course, of the obvious reason that there may well be land inside the local authority area which does not belong to it. In Clause 5 the present wording is very unsatisfactory. It says: This Act supersedes any regulations … I do not wish that to stand. I intend to put: This Act shall apply, notwithstanding any regulations in force by the local authority". Of course, many local authorities have excellent regulations as regards tree preservation, and I have no wish to disturb anything that they have provided; but, of course, some have not. Also, I hope to include a clause that will make the Bill not applicable in cases of woodland which has to be thinned. It has been questioned why I have limited the Bill to trees which have been growing for over three years. The answer is simply that many trees seed themselves very freely. I have a neighbour who has a sycamore tree, and the number of young sycamore seedlings that I have pulled up is without count. I also have a horse chestnut in my garden, and I suffer from the presence of a grey squirrel. The number of chestnuts that he has planted in my garden each year would, I think, defeat any mathematician. So one must make some provision for the pulling up of young seedlings. Therefore, I have limited the Bill to three years.

One matter has worried me and has been pointed out by others; namely, the question of the enforceability of the Bill. There is certainly a question, and I have no desire to add any more legislation to the much too long list of unenforceable legislation that we already have. However, I think that, on the whole, local authorities are very anxious to preserve trees themselves, and I do not think that the Bill is likely to need a great deal of enforcement.

Someone has also criticised the fact that there are no penalties. There, I confess, I am completely at sea. I do not have enough legal experience to know what would be appropriate penalties or where they should be imposed. If any other noble Lord wishes to make some suggestions on that point, I shall gladly consider them. Of course, I quite realise that this Bill will not get through Parliament before the end of the Session. But if your Lordships will give it a Second Reading and if we can get it through our House before the end of the Session, I shall introduce it again at the beginning of next Session, and we can go through it without any further delay. Therefore, I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Somers.)

8.10 p.m.

The Earl of BRADFORD

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Somers and to congratulate him on introducing this Bill into your Lordships' House. As I think he said or implied, it is not really a whale of a Bill; it is rather a minnow of a Bill. At the same time I think it could do a great deal of good. I would hope that it would do good in several ways: that it will remind local authorities of their obligations with regard to trees, and, secondly, and possibly even more important, that it will remind them of the tremendous importance of trees to the countryside and to our landscape and, through the local authorities, will remind the population of the same factor.

Some local authorities are well aware of their obligations. In my part of the country, Shropshire and Staffordshire, we are fortunate and the local authorities are conscientious in this matter. They keep tree banks and they use them very successfully. But there is little doubt that others in some parts of the country are not so conscientious, and I hope that this Bill will goad them into rather more action than they are taking at the moment.

My noble friend dealt with the question of why the Bill is aimed at local authorities and why private landowners are not included. I think there are many good reasons for that. The private owners are already very much shackled by the licensing procedure for felling trees with its normally associated replanting obligations. They are also very often constrained by tree preservation orders, and none of these applies to local authorities. I would think, too, that private landowners on the whole are much influenced by their traditional care for the landscape, in that the greater part of our present landscape was created by them and is due to them. They may have acted on the advice of Capability Brown, but at least they instigated the action and paid for it to be carried out. Your Lordships may query why the ratio of two to one is included in the Bill, when certainly many landowners hold the view that a ratio of ten to one is appropriate in renewal of trees. I think in this case it would be impossible to enforce such a high ratio.

Some may query also why only planting is covered because, as many of your Lordships will know, the protection and the aftercare of the trees is possibly even more important than their initial planting. My noble friend has dealt with the difficulty of enforcement in this matter, but one hopes that the effect of inducing local authorities to plant more trees will also have the effect of inducing them to look after those trees and give them the necessary aftercare; and that therefore it is not necessary to cover all these matters.

My noble friend referred, too, to the forestry strategy debate of three weeks ago in which I had the honour to take part, and in which I stressed at some length the general importance of trees. I have no intention to weary your Lordships by repeating anything I said on that occasion, but I think there is more interest than ever in trees generally in the country. It could be said in fact that as a nation we are a nation of tree lovers; yet as a nation we do all sorts of dreadful things to them. We light fires under them; we scorch them; we stick notices on them. In fact my local authority at home has just put a whole lot of notices about their pending road plans on some nice up-and-coming young hardwood trees all round the place. They cut bits off them; carve names on them (very often hearts and arrows as well); tie things on them; nail fences to them; hack through their roots; let animals chew them; build houses, roads, drains and walls under and around them; starve them, poison them, drown them; accuse them of damaging their homes; drive machinery at them, and often just accuse them of being in the way and a general nuisance. Finally, they cut them down.

As well as the direct damage there is a great deal of indifference and a lack of appreciation of just what a tree is and what it does. Here, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to quote from a most excellent book, entitled, appropriately enough, Trees, by the American author Andreas Feininger. He writes as follows: Man's life, his origin, his uniqueness, perhaps even the continuation of his very existence, are inextricably tied to the life of trees. Had there been no trees it seems likely that the human race would never have come into being. Should the trees die it is not inconceivable that man would become extinct". I quote that not just to be alarmist but as a statement of what I think is the deep relationship between man and trees. It is of the greatest importance to cultivate a positive attitude towards their care and perpetuation. To trees, too, we owe the purity of the air that we breathe in that they absorb carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. They provide so much that we take for granted. They provide a totally unquantifiable amenity value and innumerable other benefits.

The Tree Council recently have estimated that through disease, drought, old age, development, neglect and modern farming methods we have lost over 50 million trees in the last 50 years. In addition, more than 15 million elms have died from Dutch elm disease. All these points go to underline the importance of even a quite small measure like this to get more trees planted. The important thing all round, as I said in the forestry strategy debate three weeks ago, is that we need more trees planted. If this Bill can make some, even small contribution to add to that store, it will be well worth while. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a fair wind. Once again I congratulate my noble friend on introducing it.

8.19 p.m.

Lord KILBRACKEN

My Lords, it is a pleasure in this cosy little group to be considering a non-controversial and totally apolitical measure for a change. I can assure the noble Lord that I am completely in favour of the principles behind his Bill, and congratulate him, if I may, on introducing it into your Lordships' House. As I read it and studied it I became aware of certain points which seemed to me to be worthy of criticism or debate. If I do criticise them, or make suggestions, I hope it will be understood that I do so in the most constructive spirit and in the hope that it may perhaps be possible to improve the Bill in the course of its passage through this House.

I wish to start at the end and consider the schedule, because it seems to me that the trees which the noble Lord has chosen to include in the Bill have been selected in an almost capricious way. I do not know why he has decided to include these and not others. Let us consider the poplar family, for example. He includes the aspen, but not the lombardy, and the serotina poplar is omitted. Again, the sweet chestnut has to be replaced; but the horse chestnut—and what can be more beautiful than a horse chestnut when it is in flower?—can be cut down and no replacement made. The plane tree is a very important tree of the cities because it can survive the polluted atmosphere; but the plane tree and its distant cousin, the sycamore, are not included and nor are any of the willows. The willow is a huge family, and I think in particular of the weeping willow and the cricket bat willow, which can be cut down and not replaced.

In his opening remarks, the noble Lord said he was confining the Bill largely to hardwoods, but I see no reason why all the softwoods should be excluded and why it should be possible to cut those down with equanimity—the spruces, larches, firs, pines and so on. Finally on this subject, what about rhea trees? If there is a eucalyptus or a tulip tree growing, it can be cut down and an empty space left where it once grew. I would ask the noble Lord to consider whether the schedule could not be deleted altogether, and whether the Act, as it will become, should not embrace all trees of any kind. I do not understand why some, apparently without any good reason, should not be included in the legislation. The only tree that might be excluded is the elm, because I assume that nobody in his right mind would plant an elm at the moment.

That brings me to the second point, which is that at present it is laid down that a tree must be replaced by another tree of the same species. I should be happier if that were left to the local authority to decide, and then we could include all trees in the Bill, including elm trees, and when an elm was cut down it could be replaced by a tree of a different species. I think it can be left to the local authority to decide what tree to plant in place of one felled, and I would therefore suggest leaving out the last line of Clause 1: trees of the same species and of the same or similar variety". The noble Lord in his opening remarks referred briefly to the question of thinnings, an important point because where, say, a small area of beechwood, or whatever species it may be, has been clear felled, thinnings will be removed every 10 years or so until the final quantity of trees for that area is left, which will then grow on to maturity; and somehow or other the Bill should be drafted so that trees removed in the normal process of thinning a plantation according to the principles of good forestry, should be omitted.

Regarding the provision that one tree should be replaced by two trees, I appreciate the noble Lord's wish that the number of trees should steadily increase, but I do not think it is quite so easy to do as that because trees grow in so many different circumstances. If you have a line of 20 mountain ash growing in a street and two or three of them die and have to be felled and removed, it is normal to replace them with two or three specimen trees, probably of the same species; but if you have to plant half a dozen, where will you put the other three? That may not be easy when it comes to replacing specimen trees.

The Earl of CORK and ORRERY

My Lords, is the noble Lord not slightly off line here? If these trees die then they do not come within the provisions of the Bill, which deals with trees actually cut down by the local authority.

Lord KILBRACKEN

I should be grateful for clarification of that point, my Lords. I should have thought that if a tree dies, one normally fells it. It may get blown over in the wind; but if one is looking after one's trees properly, then I should have thought, with respect to the noble Earl, that if one sees the tree is dead it is better to fell it right away before it falls in the storm and does damage to one's neighbour. That is irrelevant to the point I was making, which was that if for any reason it becomes necessary to remove two or three trees in a line of trees in a street, you have to replace those with individual trees, and if you have to plant twice as many, it may be hard to find a place where you can stick in the extra ones.

One noble Lord mentioned that if you are setting down a plantation—it may be half an acre or an acre or 10 acres—of beech or oak or whatever it may be, you plant certainly more than two (probably 10 and, in the case of beech or oak, up to 20) trees for every one that is going to grow to maturity, and it is therefore necessary to plant far more than two trees for every one you cut down.

There are two other matters I wish to mention briefly. First, the noble Lord, Lord Somers, referred to the question of sanctions or penalties. Although I am not a lawyer I feel that if there are no sanctions at all, there will be no way in which this Bill can be enforced. Secondly, I would ask the noble Lord to consider whether the aftercare of trees should not be made an integral part of the Bill. Of course, if trees are not looked after they die, and presumably if they die they do not have to be replaced. There will be nothing to stop a local authority from putting in 50 trees this year and pulling them up next year and planting them somewhere else, unless there is something in the Bill to ensure that the trees are properly looked after once they have been planted.

Apart from those minor points, I wish to express my appreciation to the noble Lord for presenting the Bill in your Lordships' House, and assure him that I wish to help its progress in every way possible.

8.28 p.m.

The Earl of CORK and ORRERY

My Lords, I too feel that a good deal of merit should descend gently upon the head of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for introducing the Bill. As one who started his life and has since spent a great deal of it in, under and around trees—perhaps not in; yes, even sometimes in—and having always been closely associated with trees, which are the first things I see when I look out of my window in the morning, I feel very strongly about the disappearance of trees of almost any kind, and I wish nothing but well for the Bill.

I am bound to feel in agreement with the noble Lord when he says that it needs some amending. I do not go quite as far as he went in the appalling epithets he poured on it—I really do not believe it is quite as bad as that—but I am sure it can be amended and made a thoroughly worthwhile and workable Bill. The first part of the Bill of course contains the nub of the matter—it is really encapsulated in Clause 1—and I begin with a slight wonder as to whether or not there is liable to be any doubt about the meaning of the phrase "local authority" in a particular case. Perhaps the Minister will have something to say about that when he replies.

Who is the local authority in any particular case? If a motorway is being built and a whole wood is uprooted, I suppose that this is done at the instigation of the Ministry of Transport, which is not part of local government, anyway. In the case of an A class road the work may be carried out by a county council at the instigation of the Government. Are they responsible in such a case? If the work is done by a district council at the instigation of a county council, who then is responsible? Perhaps some thought should be given to the actual definition in this case, with regard to where the responsibility lies.

I shall return to that point in a moment when I deal with Clause 2(3), but I should now like to make a brief remark on the question of the one to two ratio. My noble friend Lord Bradford has called this into question by saying that the ratio is much too small, and so it is, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has agreed. But he has also said that in some cases it is much too big; and I entirely take his point about cutting down moribund trees in the road. In such a case the authority that cuts down these roadside trees is not bound to plant two trees in the same place from which one grew. The authority can plant the second one somewhere else. It is probably very difficult to get around this particular problem in any way that is more satisfactory than leaving it as it is. On the whole, I should think, the ratio of two trees for one will probably pass as near enough to be right.

I skip on to Clause 2(3), which provides a complete get-out for any local authority that does not wish to be bound by the Bill. If this subsection were not included in the Bill, and a noble Lord proposed to insert it, he might rightly be accused of proposing a wrecking amendment. Let me take an imaginary example of the kind of thing that I have in mind. Let us suppose that a district council that wished to build a car park were to cut down an oak tree. It can then replace that oak tree with two sprouting acorns, and plant them in the middle of the car park. The point is that they would instantly be ground into the surface by the motorcars. Those plantings, being less than three years old, would not have to be replaced. So in fact there would be no obligation on anybody to replace anything, except by way of an insignificant sprout which could instantly be allowed to die. It would be such a ridiculously useless operation that no notice need be taken of the Bill.

I quite see the noble Lord's point when he speaks of trees that have sprung up in large numbers and which are not to be preserved; but I believe that he is thinking of that part of Clause 1 which refers to replanting, and he has not considered that the provision also applies to the cutting down of trees: trees are not to be cut down. The clause refers to trees destroyed or felled that are less than three years old. Trees are not covered if they are less than three years old. If they are less than three years old, they do not have to be replaced. So any tree that is less than three years old can be cut down or destroyed and never replaced. I think that it will be found that there will be no need for anyone to take any notice of the Bill if he does not wish to do so. I am postulating a somewhat extreme case of a rather recalcitrant council, yet I think we must get it right, and this does not seem to be quite right. It would not be very difficult to draft a provision to put this right, and I think that I should like to do so, if I am so allowed.

Clause 3 appears to have the effect of setting up a very considerable new bureaucracy solely for the purpose of looking after and recording details of trees. I do not think that any local authority will he very happy with this. I know of one or two who cannot stand the thought of it. I wonder whether it is really necessary to have anything so elaborate. Could not the case be met by simply providing that a local authority must keep a register in which it records the trees that are cut down and the particulars of these trees which replace them, the register to be open for inspection at any time by an inspector appointed by the Minister or by any member of the public? That would be a fairly simple and commonplace type of operation which I suggest would probably meet the case adequately. The proposals that the noble Lord has offered us in the Bill are rather daunting and elaborate, and possibly tend to amount to using a steam hammer to crack a nut. Everything thereafter is pretty well plain sailing.

I have made a note complaining about Clause 5, but as the noble Lord has himself already done this, I need say no more about it. I, too, have doubts about the schedule, and I rather join with the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, in his doubts. He may well have a good idea in suggesting that there should be no schedule. I am not quite sure how this would work out; I think that it needs much more thought between now and later stages of the Bill. I am not totally happy about it in detail, but one has one's private, personal tastes. I think that there are already far too many macrocarpas in the country, and the idea of cutting down a hedge of those and planting two more hedges in their place fills me with dismay. However, perhaps that is a rather personal point of view, and it in no way lessens the fact that I support the noble Lord and congratulate him upon his Bill. We should be grateful to him, and I hope that ultimately his efforts will meet with great success.

8.36 p.m.

Lord GISBOROUGH

My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord upon presenting the Bill, but I am afraid that I cannot receive it with quite the same joy as did previous speakers. It is certainly wrapped up in good intentions, but I think it is an extremely poor Bill, and a totally unnecessary one. First, Clause 1, which refers to local authorities, totally leaves out all those public authorities such as the various gas and electricity boards. They are not covered, yet they are probably the worst offenders, because while the local authority has local councillors who are extremely keen about the amenities of their own town, an electricity board sitting in a particular area and covering Little Puddlington 200 miles away really will not know whether there are any trees there, and will care even less.

Local builders are among the worst people in this regard, because they buy a little piece of land and needless to say, chop down trees in order to get the houses fitted in. The builder, unlike the landowner, who is there for life, comes in, builds a house, and goes. Thus in this matter the local builder should also be covered, if possible. Road programmes have been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery. Here there is the interesting speculation of a road being put through a wood comprising perhaps 200 trees and the local authority having to find space in a totally different place for 400 trees to be planted.. There is also the matter regarding the same species, which the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has mentioned. This proposal would be utterly impracticable because it could well be that one particular species has been planted and grown stunted for years, and perhaps it will be recommended that a much better kind could be grown next time; and that is too restrictive.

Then we come to the interesting proposal that the trees must be planted at the site or at any other place within the local authority area. This would mean that the local authority for Westminster—as I think is the case here—if it were able to fell the trees in Parliament Square, could replace them with trees planted in the middle of Hyde Park, which would really be too absurd for words. There is also the matter regarding plantation or standards. It makes a huge difference whether one is talking about numbers of trees in the form of a plantation, or whether one is talking in terms of the replanting of standards. Surely the whole Bill involves standards, and not plantations, which is totally different.

Lord KILBRACKEN

My Lords, is there any real reason for thinking that the Bill does not affect plantations? If a plantation is cut down within a local government area, the Bill would apply to it.

Lord GISBOROUGH

My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. Therefore, let us pursue the matter. Local authorities are not particularly flush with land. Normally they only have land which they actually need and if they had to take it out of a plantation of, say, five acres to create a public park or whatever it may be, they would have to find 10 acres of plantation. Obviously that would be impossible for such an authority to do.

Clause 2(3) of the Bill specifies a period of "less than three years". My noble friends Lord Bradford and Lord Cork and Orrery have already dealt with that point. In my part of the world, and I do not think it is unique, if one plants 10 trees, if one survives the first three years without being cut off in its prime and vandalised, it is very lucky. The essence of the matter relates not only to planting but to the maintenance of a tree to maturity or to a certain age.

I regard Clause 5 as absolute nonsense and it would have to be deleted. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, and others men- tioned the question of the schedule. Why is that provision so narrow? Why not include the palm tree which grows in many places in the South of England?

We must then examine the question of the use of these trees for hardwood. I cannot believe that local authorities would plant trees with the end object of the creation of hardwood for use as timber. Timber production is one thing. It is produced in forests and plantations for that purpose. If one even had in mind the production of furniture timber in towns, it would be too absurd to consider such a matter because when such wood was mature, nobody would allow such trees to be cut down because they would be protected. That suggestion is a nonstarter, and for that very reason the numbers are not worth thinking of. Furthermore, the treatment in respect of pruning and so on would be quite different.

Most authorities are extremely keen on trees. All local authorities of which I have had experience are fanatical about them. One notices in places such as County Durham great numbers of little towns with trees lining the roads, and many trees have been planted on council estates. Trees are planted in places where one might think that local authorities would not take the trouble to plant. Local authorities in general have planted very great numbers of trees. The only people who sometimes are not particularly careful, unless pressed, are the public utilities. I believe that this matter would be far better left to circulars and to councillors in their own areas to look after the subject. I believe that they will look after it thoroughly. There are many ginger groups, such as the Civic Trust and the CPRE, who are always ready to remind councillors of their responsibilities in this regard. I regard this Bill as a nonsense, however good the intentions behind it.

8.44 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin)

My Lords, the Government are as enthusiastic as is the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that large numbers of trees should be planted to enrich the environment of this country. The loss of many trees over the last decade, particularly due to the ravages of Dutch elm disease, has brought home the desultory visual effect of a relatively treeless landscape, and this is certainly a cause for concern. Lord Somers and I are therefore at one that more trees need to be planted. Before I go any further, I should say that I have taken the Bill to relate to local authorities acting on their own behalf. If a local authority is acting on behalf of a Government department, I assume that they are not affected by the provisions of the Bill.

Tree planting was given a considerable boost by the Government-sponsored "Plant a Tree in 73" campaign, following which the Tree Council was set up to promote the planting and care of trees, and to act as a forum for some 25 or so national organisations to co-ordinate initiatives for tree planting. A great deal has been accomplished in the past seven years, to overcome the previous years of neglect. Much more needs to be done, but it is the Government's view that the proposals put forward in this Bill are not the best way of overcoming the problem.

There are a number of reasons why we cannot support the Bill. We have declared our determination to reduce substantially the number of controls over local government activities and to give the authorities more discretion and flexibility in the discharge of their functions. That is one important reason why we cannot support this attempt to impose a statutory duty on all local authorities to plant a defined number and species of trees. As my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery properly said, the proposals would also involve increased bureaucracy in that, all else apart, local authority staff would need to spend time on ensuring that the legal requirements for planting were being carried out and on notifying the details required by Clause 3. Furthermore, one might ask—indeed, one has to ask—who is to monitor the provisions of Clause 3? The implication at least is that central Government should employ supervisors to ensure that local authorities comply.

My noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery asked where the local authority responsibility lay. The answer is that it could be with either the county or the district council, depending on the circumstances in each case, as both levels of authority have locus in such a situation. But in any case, we do not believe that the proposals would necessarily lead to any more trees being planted by local authorities than they would otherwise plant. Indeed, the Bill could well be counterproductive, as authorities might be disposed to carry out tree planting only up to the extent of the proposed new statutory duty.

My noble friend Lord Bradford said that the Bill will remind local authorities of the need for trees and will goad some authorities into action. That is a fair point that can only be to the good. Although we do not keep comprehensive statistics of local authorities' tree planting programmes, I believe it is also fair to say that the numbers of trees being planted by many authorities are already, as my noble friend Lord Gisborough said, well in excess of the numbers demanded by this Bill.

I understand, for example, that Essex County Council, one of the counties which has been particularly hard hit by Dutch elm disease, is currently planting, or grant-aiding landowners to plant, in excess of 75,000 trees per year, and Norfolk and Cornwall's programmes are of a similar size. Local authorities, of course, receive considerable assistance from the Countryside Commission in their tree planting programmes in the countryside.

Furthermore, to specify that replacement trees must be of the same species and of the same or a similar variety is too restrictive. Authorities may well have an over-preponderance of trees of a particular species, or trees which are unsuited to the locality. When, for any reason, these have to be felled, authorities will often wish to replace them by trees of a different species. We want to encourage the planting of as wide a range of species as possible, in order to give greater variety to our environment and to lessen the chances of diseases spreading.

To specify some 15 species, in the way this Bill does, is likely to give credence to the view that these are in a first division of suitability, and that other equally fine species are less worthy to be grown. We ought not to do anything to discourage the planting of other beautiful trees, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, so rightly said. For all these reasons, not to mention some of the practical reasons raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, we cannot support the Bill.

However, like the noble Lord, Lord Somers, we do wish to encourage the extensive planting of trees. In accordance with the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, local authorities have the power to plant trees for the purpose of preserving or enhancing the natural beauty of their areas, and Department of the Environment Circular 36/78 advised authorities to develop policies, within financial constraints, for their own planting, and to set a positive example to encourage planting by private owners.

Although these financial constraints are still with us, this is no reason to believe that local authorities will award tree planting any lesser degree of priority than they have done hitherto. I under-stand that the Countryside Commission expect to spend at least as much on amenity tree planting this year as they did last. A valuable contribution in the provision, planting and care of trees for the community can also be made by such organisations as civic societies, county naturalists' trusts and other voluntary groups. I must say how much I endorse what my noble friend Lord Gisborough said about the enthusiasm that exists for the planting of trees in the inner cities, too—a source of activity in which I am personally concerned. It is encouraging to note, just about everywhere, the enthusiasm with which there is the planting of trees to enhance the environment.

By a happy coincidence, this debate is taking place the day after the Tree Council has launched its National Tree Campaign, and I should like to take this opportunity to urge support for it. The campaign aims: … to encourage local voluntary groups, individuals and families to plant and care for trees and to inform and interest our youth, so that, in their turn, they will enjoy an environment of health and beauty in trees which are so often taken for granted". Incidentally, the campaign also aims to raise £1 million to enable more trees to be planted.

The Tree Council is seeking the support of local authorities to this campaign, and I am sure that they will play their full part in getting more trees planted and in ensuring the proper care for young trees. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother has very kindly agreed to accept a gift of 80 trees to commemorate her 80th birthday. I hope that the Tree Council's recommendation, that the opportunity should be taken to plant clumps or avenues of 80 trees as an expression of affection for the Queen Mother and to help to beautify the landscape, will be taken up by many authorities and groups. I repeat my sympathy and support for the basic objectives which this Bill sets out to achieve, while at the same time I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will accept my explanation as to why we cannot support it.

8.54 p.m.

Lord SOMERS

My Lords, I am most grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate, but I regret to say that many noble Lords seem totally to have misunderstood the purpose behind this Bill. As far as the planting of trees is concerned, naturally I realise that there is a very great enthusiasm for it, but the whole purpose of this Bill is not to further the planting of trees in a general sense but to further the preservation of numbers of certain varieties of trees. The reason why I have said "certain varieties" is that they are the slow-growing trees which people who are keen on tree planting today are very unlikely to plant because they know perfectly well that they will not live to see them come to maturity. They are extremely valuable trees, not only from the point of view of their timber but also from that of appearance. For instance, I think it would be a very great pity if the oak tree were to become a museum piece in our countryside, and was very rarely seen.

Lord KILBRACKEN

My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the aspen, for example, and the silver birch, are extremely fast growing trees?

Lord SOMERS

Yes, I certainly would, my Lords, of course; but the point is that they are very much self-sowing, and therefore are not likely to become reduced in numbers.

The question of the proportion of two to one has been mentioned. Some noble Lords think it is too high, others too low. The reason why I chose that proportion was that in the areas of certain urban councils there is unlikely to be room to plant more than two of the same species. Therefore, I did not wish to raise it above that. Of course, the reason why it is two rather than just another one, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, I think, suggested, is that (as he must know as well as I do) if you plant two trees it is quite likely that only one of them will survive owing to various causes—bad weather, pests, and so forth. These days, even hooliganism, I think, might be included.

My noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery spoke of the clearing of a large area of woodland in the construction of a motorway. There I think he has made a valuable point. I think that possibly should be excepted by a special clause, which I will consider inserting in the Bill at Committee stage if your Lordships give it a Second Reading, which I sincerely hope your Lordships will because, although imperfect at the moment, I feel that it is necessary to try and protect the planting of these trees, which are rapidly becoming more and more rare. Then, the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, suggested that it is absurd to expect local authorities to plant trees in order to produce hardwood. Of course it is, but an oak tree—does the noble Lord wish to interrupt?

Lord GISBOROUGH

My Lords, with respect, it was the noble Lord himself who raised the point about having timber from these trees to use.

Lord SOMERS

Yes, my Lords. I raised that point as one reason behind this Bill, but not by any means as the only one. I think it is most important that the oak should be preserved as a feature of the countryside. My Lords, I have really said all that I can on this. I hope that I have made clear the objections about the schedule, why other trees are not included. I sincerely hope that, in spite of the fact that this Bill has not received support from the Government, your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.