HL Deb 07 May 1980 vol 408 cc1698-723

5.25 p.m.

Lord SOMERS

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Somers.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Lord NUGENT Of GUILDFORD in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Obligation to plant new trees]:

[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]

Lord SOMERS moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 6, after ("area") insert ("owned and").

The noble Lord said: The majority of my amendments are purely drafting, so I can assure your Lordships that I shall not take a great deal of time. I inserted Amendment No. 2 simply to make it quite clear that the land is both owned and administered by the local council. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord SOMERS moved Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 7, after ("any") insert ("living").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is quite obvious. There should be no objection to cutting down a tree which has already died and, therefore, I wish to insert the word "living". I beg to move.

Lord KILBRACKEN

The noble Lord said that this is quite a formal amendment, but I do not feel at all in favour of it. I do not see any reason why a dead tree should be excepted from the provisions of the Bill. Let me take the scenario where, under the spreading chestnut tree, the village smithy stands. The spreading chestnut tree is struck by lightning and dies. It is a noted local ornament and happens to stand on land controlled by the local authority. They are then under no obligation to replace it. Similarly, if there is a line of mountain ash growing along a surburban street and one or two of them die for any reason, there is no reason to replace them.

Another point to consider is that if the elms, which are still dying in great quantities over the country, die on land controlled by a local authority there is no reason for those elms to be replaced. I ask the noble Lord to think again about this question, because the amendment means that where a tree dies nothing need be put there to replace it, and I would oppose the amendment.

The Earl of CORK and ORRERY

I am not at all sure that I am entirely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, as I call to mind a spectacle that I have witnessed in the past; and others of your Lordships may also have done so. I refer to the spectacle of several hundred thousand starlings flying to roost at sunset time and coming down in a small wood. It is not a very frequent happening, I am glad to say, but it is a quite well-known one, and if it is a wood of small trees—certainly, trees that would be covered by the provisions of this Bill—it will be totally destroyed. This might amount to the sudden death of several hundred trees. If the objection of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, is accepted, who will replace all those dead trees? The onus falls upon the local authority. The local authority is presumably the parish council. I should not care to be a member of a parish council that suddenly found itself charged by statute with the duty of replacing a whole wood.

The noble Lord also made the point about a line of trees in, say, a suburban street, one or two of which might die. I do not think that we need to bother about that. I am pretty certain that any urban authority would replace such trees. It would be rare if they left them unreplaced. I suggest to the Committee that it would be overdoing it to pass a statute law to make it compulsory to replace one or two trees, the expense of the former dead wood falling upon the parish council of which I spoke just now. Therefore I support the amendment.

Lord WYNNE-JONES

A small point can arise in this connection and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, would be able to deal with it quite easily in his amendment. What happens if a tree which is dead has been preserved by filling it with plastic? It so happens that there is in this country one famous tree in this condition. It is at Farnborough. Earlier this century, the famous Colonel Brodie used to ride up to it, in the days when he flew kites at Farnborough, and tether his horse there. The tree became quite famous. Towards the end of the last war it was discovered that the tree was dying, so it was decided to preserve it by filling it with plastic. I think I am right in saying that the tree is still there. It is not a living tree, yet such a tree surely ought to be preserved.

Lord SOMERS

I think I can comfort the noble Lord by saying that according to the amendment there is no compulsion to destroy any tree, whether alive or dead. The only thing that the amendment proposes is that you shall not be forced, if you do, to plant two others of the same variety. On the other hand, I think that there is a great deal in what both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, have said. On the strength of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.32 p.m.

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 4: Page 1, line 7, leave out ("of a species set out in the Schedule to this Act").

The noble Lord said: Perhaps I should mention that if this amendment succeeds it will be meaningless to call Amendments Nos. 23 to 32 inclusive because the purpose of this amendment is to prepare the way for omitting the schedule from the Bill. The reason is that the schedule sets out particular species that will have to be replaced if they are felled or destroyed.

As I mentioned on Second Reading, the species listed by the noble Lord in the amendment appear to have been chosen on a rather capricious basis. Some of them are conifers; some of them are deciduous; some are softwood and some are hardwood; some are fast growing trees and some are slow growing trees; some are trees that are generally used for timber and some are trees that are very rarely, if ever, used for timber. That is quite apart from the fact that uncommon trees do not come within its scope at all. Nor do trees such as the sycamore, which is a very important timber tree and also a very attractive tree.

When the noble Lord replied to the debate on Second Reading, he said that the reason why he had chosen the trees in the schedule was because they are slow growing trees. I pointed out to him then that at least two of them, the silver birch and the aspen, are extremely fast growing trees, to which he replied that they are very much self-sowing and are not likely, therefore, to become reduced in numbers. But that would be more a reason for leaving them out of the schedule than for including them.

I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has put down a number of amendments which would add several trees, including two of those which I suggested at Second Reading, to the list. However, I can see no virtue in restricting in any way the particular species that will have to be replaced. If there were to be a schedule it would have to be immensely long, and I do not know why certain trees should be left out. As I mentioned on the previous occasion, why is the aspen poplar there but not the lombardy poplar or the serotina poplar? I could go on and give a number of other examples to your Lordships.

What this amendment would achieve would be that any tree, apart from those excluded from the Bill by subsequent provisions, would have to be replaced by at least two more if it were cut down by a local authority. I think it is far better that it should apply thus generally, and with some strength I should like to propose to noble Lords that they should accept this amendment.

The Earl of CORK and ORRERY

I am inclined to support the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, in his amendment. He is a little hard on the noble Lord, Lord Somers, in rather high-handedly abolishing the whole of this schedule upon which the noble Lord has spent so much time. It goes against the grain to be hard on the noble Lord, but I am afraid that I am inclined to be a little hard on him. One could go on amending a schedule of this kind practically for ever—taking trees out and putting others in. As many as there were people engaged upon this exercise, so many different versions of the schedule would, I suspect, emerge at the end of the exercise. In any case, the schedule would be likely to get longer and longer, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has said. On the whole, probably the best thing to do is to leave the whole thing out.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

May I say something on behalf of the Government about this. As my noble friend Lord Bellwin indicated at Second Reading, we have every sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, is trying to do. We firmly wish to encourage the extensive planting of trees. However, as my noble friend said, we cannot support this Bill. As my noble friend Lord Gisborough said, however good the intentions behind the Bill may be he thought it was a nonsense.

The amendments which have been tabled to improve the Bill do a certain amount, but we in the Government do not see much point in trying to turn this measure into one which we can support because at the end of the day we are not going to support it. I must be honest. Our fundamental objection is that it runs completely counter to our policy of reducing substantially the number of controls over local authorities and of giving to those authorities more discretion and flexibility. Furthermore, we think that it is unnecessary because we believe that most local authorities do not need any such encouragement to plant more trees. Also, it would increase bureaucracy which, as noble Lords will be aware, is not part of our policy.

We see little point in endeavouring to improve this very well intentioned but perhaps misguided Bill. I understand fully the intentions behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. I sympathise with a great deal of what he said about the various types of trees which are or which are not in the schedule. However, this is going to add to the bureaucratic process.

I thought that at this stage I ought to make clear the Government's position. We do not like this amendment at all because we think that it would add to the statutory requirements in the Bill, which we think already contains too many.

Lord WYNNE-JONES

After that apologia pro vita sua, I wonder a little what the Government do want to do. Do they not wish to see some uniform principle observed throughout the country? Do they wish to leave it to every local authority to decide whether or not to lop down trees? One only has to look around at the present time to see that where a local authority has got such freedom the amount of pollardisation that goes on, the amount of wilful damage to trees, is absolutely shocking. Even a Government who claim that they do not wish to interfere at all in the interests of this country should nevertheless pay a little attention—just a little attention—to the way in which the environment is destroyed. Should they not wish to see, when in the fullness of time they relinquish office, that they leave something behind them which is worth preserving?

I know that the noble Lord is nothing like such a vandal as he would pretend to be on certain occasions, and I am quite sure that if he looks at this matter carefully he will realise that there is a lot to be said for this amendment. It is one which ought to be considered carefully and not brushed aside as something that the Government do not want to have anything to do with.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

The noble Lord, I am sure mistakenly, said in his speech if I did not mishear him, that we had no interest in the well-being of this country. I cannot imagine where he has gathered the impression from any member of this Government that we have no interest in the well-being of this country, because we have just as much interest in the well-being of this country as anybody else in this country. We think our way of going about it will improve the well-being more than perhaps the views expressed by his Party.

As I said earlier, we have every sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Somers. Nobody loves trees more than I do—nobody. I am absolutely as dedicated as is the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, to the planting of trees. I think they are beautiful; I think they are lovely; I know they are useful for the country. They will provide all sorts of things which we shall need in the future. Past generations have planted and we are grateful to them; I hope future generations will be equally grateful to us. I do not see the necessity at this moment of time to add further instructions to local authorities to do these things. I look around me, up and down the country, in metropolitan boroughs, in counties—you name the authority you are talking about, because I do not know where these authorities are who are lagging behind in their duty.

The noble Lord spoke about vandals. When I see trees vandalised I am equally upset, but I notice that the local council replants them; they do not need to be told by statute authority to do it. They are doing what one might say comes naturally. They want to see beauty in the form of trees. All housing authorities now realise that houses are enhanced in beauty by having greenery and trees around them. We are all pushing at an open door; I do not think this provision is necessary. This is the only point between us. We are not disagreeing about the beauty or the necessity of trees; we are merely asking whether this is necessary. We do not think it is.

The EARL of CORK and ORRERY

I am not sure that I perfectly understood my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton. He appears to me to have been making a Second Reading speech attacking the whole Bill. We had that speech from somebody else on Second Reading.

What we are concerned with now is an amendment proposed by Lord Kilbracken to leave out the schedule. If I may extract from my noble friend's first speech—he has just made two speeches and delightful they were as usual—he was complaining about the proposition that more bureaucracy should be brought into being; that more duty should be laid upon local governments. What the amendment is doing is actually the opposite. It is removing this schedule so that nobody should have to discuss whether or not a tree was in the schedule; no inspector should be required to come and see whether this was a sycamore or an oak. It is washed out. This surely reduces the amount of bureaucracy, and the amount of work required by the local council.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

If I can ask indulgence to get up yet a third time, I accept that. I apologise. I was rather making a Second Reading speech and I did intend to make it clear that I was putting the Government's general view on the Bill.

On the particular point that my noble friend made, the schedule as originally put in by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, limited a certain number of trees to certain species. If Lord Kilbracken's amendment is passed, it will mean not only that those trees will have to be replanted but a whole lot more as well. To that extent it does add to the workload in the bureaucracy.

Lord SOMERS

What seems to have escaped so many noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, is the point I made on Second Reading, that this Bill is not directed at trees generally. It is directed at a certain kind of tree; namely, those trees that are so slow growing that those who plant them are never likely to live to see the results. While I have every admiration for the activities of many local councils not all of them admittedly, but many of them—in planting trees, they seldom plant the right kind. They are much more apt to plant a flowering cherry or something like that which will grow to maturity or semi-maturity within the lifetime of the present council, or anyway of the present residents. But that is not what this Bill is supposed to ensure it is intended to preserve in the country as a whole the numbers of the slow growing trees, which are not being planted. To remove the schedule, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, suggests, would remove the entire purpose of the Bill and, incidentally, would make a great deal more work for those councils who it has been pointed out have to replant them. I sincerely hope your Lordships will not accept this amendment.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

There is one further point I would make. If a tree were planted originally—say, a baby standard—babies grow into big trees and sometimes one has seen occasions where a good tree had been planted but in totally the wrong place. If this sort of measure became law we would have to perpetuate the same mistake for ever. Has the noble Lord thought of that?

Lord SOMERS

We do not specify where the new tree is to be planted. Let us hope that the councils which the noble Lord says are so keen on tree preservation will have the sense to put a tree in the right place.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

I do not think the noble Lord is quite grasping the point I am making. If you plant a chestnut of either the Spanish or the horse-chestnut variety in a fairly narrow London street it is very nice when it is young, but as it grows older it becomes bigger and bigger. It is probably totally unsuitable to be in that place, I am suggesting, and therefore might not the council in its wisdom wish to have the discretion, when it did fall or had to be cut, to plant perhaps in its place some smaller tree? It is not necessarily wrong to replace a hardwood with (shall we say?) a cherry tree, because it might have been that the hardwood grew to be too big and was therefore not suitable for longterm policy. I only ask that because I do not like making statutory suggestions for something that might not be suitable in the long term. In the countryside that would be all right, but so far as towns are concerned I ask this. Does the noble Lord think it always necessarily right to have to replace something which possibly would grow too big?

Lord KILBRACKEN

On that point may I draw the noble Lord's attention to my next amendment, No. 5, which leaves out the words, of the same species and of the same or a similar variety", and therefore would allow a local authority to plant any species it liked in place of one that fell down. The noble Lord has taken a rather unusual course in making a speech early in the Committee stage which tells us more or less that we are wasting our time here; but I assume that we are going to continue with this Committee stage, and I should like to say a few further words in the light of what has been said already.

The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, does not seem to have noticed that, in moving an amendment which would result in the deletion of the schedule, I was in fact taking action as suggested by his noble friend Lord Bellwin during the Second Reading, when he said: 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".—[Official Report, 16/4/80; col. 395.] One of the reasons which led me to move the deletion of the schedule was because the Minister thought it unwise that 15 particular species should be specified.

Secondly, I wish to turn to what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has again said about the purpose of his Bill, which is that it should act to preserve the continuance of slow growing trees. But if that is the object of his Bill, then the schedule contains some extraordinary inclusions because, as he himself agreed, the aspens and the silver birch, for instance, are not only easily self-regenerated but also are extremely fast growing, and therefore they should be included. I am grateful to the noble Earl for the support which he has given to this Bill. If we are going ahead with the Committee stage, as I assume we are, I wish to persevere with my amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger)

In calling Amendment No. 5 I have to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that, if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 6 or 7.

5.53 p.m.

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 5: Page 1, line 10, leave out ("of the same species and of the same or a similar variety").

The noble Lord said: As I mentioned when speaking to the last amendment, Amendment No. 5 would leave out of line 10 the words, of the same species and of the same or a similar variety".

The result of this amendment would be that, instead of having to replace a tree that has been cut down by one of the same species, it would be left entirely to the local authority to decide what species of tree should be planted. In general I am in favour of the idea of leaving it to the local authority to decide what kind of tree they should plant, and I would suggest that in any case it is advisable that this should be so. In the first place, if an elm tree which is not yet dead is cut down it would presumably need to be replaced by a tree of a different variety.

Then, for example, if there is a line of oak trees and one of them is cut down, the oak is a tree demanding a great deal of air and light and it would be very unwise to put another oak tree where it was going to be overhung by more mature trees. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will agree, particularly now that the schedule is going to be deleted and any tree that is embraced by it, that it should be left to the local authority to decide what species of tree should be planted in the place of one that has been felled. I beg to move.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

If I appeared somewhat churlish to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, previously, let me say that, so far as this amendment is concerned, I think it is a very useful relaxation of the points that he made in relation to my speech earlier.

Lord INGLEWOOD

I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, because in every town in this country there are countless examples of unhealthy trees and trees which were planted in the wrong place. Under the terms of the Bill, it seems that that mistake which was made by a previous generation has to be made again, when any reasonable forester would much prefer, in the light of experience to plant a tree of a different species which would be much more likely to give pleasure to many people in years to come.

Lord KILBRACKEN

I am grateful to both noble Lords for their support.

Lord SOMERS

No doubt, in the light of the fact that Amendment No. 4 has been agreed to, there is no point in objecting to Amendment No. 5. I can only say that of course this has destroyed the entire purpose of the Bill and I can find very little reason for going on with it, but as it is here I suppose it must be done.

Lord KILBRACKEN

In view of what the noble Lord has said, perhaps I may say that it was by no means my intention that either of those amendments should be regarded as being in any sense a wrecking amendment or the sort of amendment which would change the operation of the Bill, but rather would make it more effective. It was in that spirit that I moved them.

The Earl of CORK and ORRERY

I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, in expressing a somewhat similar sentiment. It would be a most appalling idea that anybody should wish to destroy this Bill, nor do I think that this amendment or any other amendment runs the risk of doing anything of the kind. I know that it is close to the noble Lord's heart to have this Bill with a particular purpose—that is, to replace a small number of hardwood trees—but if other noble Lords see in it a different purpose and choose to move amendments to the Bill to sustain that purpose, the particular purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, may be lost. What the rest of the Committee is trying to do is to support this Bill and make it into a good Bill, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will accept that.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

I should like to comfort the noble Lord, Lord Somers, because I believe I detected a note of hurt in his voice. We all appreciate what he is doing, but for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery and the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, on Amendment No. 5, to avoid having to perpetuate the mistake made by an earlier generation by planting the wrong tree, this particular amendment must be a good one. Otherwise we should merely be perpetuating earlier mistakes. I hope the noble Lord will not take any hurt from what any noble Lord has said, because I promise him that such was far from being anyone's wish.

Lord WYNNE-JONES

From this side of the Committee, I wish to say that we support this Bill in its principle and we hope that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will realise that any amendment of this type is not intended to destroy the Bill at all but is rather trying to put it into a form which we believe would be helpful and valuable. I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for having brought this Bill foward in the first place.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]

On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall be agreed to?

The EARL of CORK and ORRERY

I think I owe the Committee an apology. It may have been noticed by some noble Lords that I tabled Amendment No. 1 and did not move it. This was not a device (as some may have supposed, although I hope they did not) to get my name at the top of page 1; it arose from the fact that I made a mistake by not seeing something until it was too late to table another amendment. If your Lordships will look at Clause 1 you will see that it begins: Any local authority, or any person acting on its behalf … shall come under certain obligations; that is, to replace a tree that has been cut down.

When I read this it seemed to express very clearly what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, had in mind. I did not even notice, in my slovenly reading of it, that in fact it did nothing of the kind. I do not think even he now agrees that this is right. In practice it means that if a local authority employs, say, a contractor to cut down a line of trees, then that contractor, being the person acting on the authority's behalf, shall be responsible for the trouble, labour and expense of replacing the trees. That cannot possibly have been the intention, and it would not make sense if it were. What I think is required to be done is not to add the words, "local authority", as I proposed for totally different reasons, but to remove that phrase altogether; that is, to take out "or any person acting on its behalf". Then, I think though it might be appropriate to consider this a little more, the clause will be left in a satisfactory form. What I would propose to do, if allowed, is to move an amendment to that effect at Report stage.

Lord SOMERS

My noble friend has a distinct point there. I shall be perfectly happy for some change to be made at Report stage.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Planting of new trees]:

6.3 p.m.

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 8: Page 1, line 13, leave out subsection (2).

The noble Lord said: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will not accuse me of tearing his Bill apart any further in my moving this amendment. I do so because the subsection seems to me to be totally unnecessary. The subsection is in two parts. It begins by saying (2) The planting of new trees under section 1 above may take place on or near the point of felling or destruction …".

I submit that that is a completely meaningless and unnecessary phrase in a statute. Of course the felling may take place on or near the point of felling or destruction, but there is no compulsion about it. It then goes on to say: … or at any other place or places within the local authority area".

I do not imagine that the local authority having to plant trees would choose to plant them outside the area that it controls. But if it was convenient for it to do so, I do not see why it should be prohibited from doing so. Again, to reduce the amount of bureaucracy necessary, I suggest that it should be left entirely to the local authority to decide where the necessary trees are planted.

Lord SOMERS

I think that this is a perfectly reasonable amendment. Perhaps it is laying down rather hard and fast lines for any council to tell them exactly where they may or may not plant trees. No doubt they are quite capable of deciding that for themselves. I am perfectly happy to accept this amendment.

The Earl of CORK and ORRERY

I am not so sure about this. This time I support the Bill against its mover, and also against the amendment. If this subsection is taken out, I think that local authorities would find themselves obliged, at least by implication, to plant a new tree in the place where the old one was growing. I think that is the inference that -flows from this. It is therefore right to put in a proviso that they may plant it somewhere else. So far, so good. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, is not objecting to that, I think. What he says is that it is unnecessary to say that they may plant it in any other place, or places within the local authority area.

Suppose one left out the words "within the local authority area", then one is simply left with the words "or at any other place or places". That would be silly. I do not believe the noble Lord would want that to go in by itself. The whole phrase would go. I think that there is a point in the last few words. It would not be reasonable to say that a local authority might cut down a tree in one place and plant another one in the next county, or in the garden of its own chairman—who happened to live in Wiltshire when the county council was perhaps in Cornwall. I think it is reasonable. I do not know whether there is a parliamentary term which corresponds to the vernacular term of "nit-picking", but I think that is what we want here to describe the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord SOMERS

If the noble Earl looks at Amendment No. 9 he will see that that amends the wording slightly, to places owned and administered by the said local authority". On the other hand, I think that there is a certain amount in what both noble Lords have said and I must leave it to the Committee to decide.

Lord KILBRACKEN

In view of what has been said, I suggest that I be permitted to think about it again and perhaps, after discussing it with noble Lords informally, move or not move a separate amendment at a later stage. I therefore beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord SOMERS moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 1, line 15, leave out from ("places") to end of line and insert ("owned and administered by the said local authority.").

The noble Lord said: I have just explained the reason for this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The EARL of CORK and ORRERY moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 1, line 15, leave out from ("places") to end of line and insert ("administered by the said local authority").

The noble Earl said: This is a simple drafting amendment of no particular significance. I simply think that this wording is better than that in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

It looks to me as though, in moving this amendment, the noble Earl is doing exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and the Committee have done in the previous amendment. It seems to be totally unnecessary.

The EARL of CORK and ORRERY

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 1, line 15, at end insert— ("() Such trees shall be properly maintained, and any casualties replaced, by the authority concerned.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment may I say that I felt it was desirable to ensure that trees were not only planted but that they were subsequently looked after. Since dead trees are now not included in the provisions of the Bill I chose the words "any casualties replaced "—which is a rather fanciful phrase, though I believe its meaning is quite clearly understood—because they do remain necessary. I think your Lordships will agree that where trees have been planted there should be an obligation to maintain them properly, and that is the purpose of this amendment.

Lord SOMERS

This is a very necessary amendment and I am most grateful to the noble Lord for having introduced it.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

I would congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, on this amendment. I think it is very sensible.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

6.10 p.m.

The Earl of CORK and ORRERY moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 1, line 16, after ("to") insert ("self-seeded").

The noble Earl said: This subsection of Clause 2 provides the complete "get-out" from the provisions of the Bill by any local authority that does not wish to be bound by it. The effect of what it says is that a tree may be cut down—shall we say that it is growing in the middle of a car park, or where a car-park is to be built—and then, say, two more sprouting acorns are planted, still in the middle of the car-park, and nature is left to take its course. Nature, of course, would be represented by motor-cars, which would instantly mow the poor little trees into the ground. As the clause stands, it removes from the authority any duty to look after a tree until it is three years old.

Lord KILBRACKEN

Does the noble Earl take into account the amendment we have just approved, which says that any casualties have to be replaced?

The Earl of CORK and ORRERY

I think probably I was paying more attention to this amendment than to what the noble Lord was saying on the previous one. It is certainly arguable that this amendment has become unnecessary in view of the amendment we have just passed. I do not know whether anyone else would like to comment. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, would like to enlarge upon it.

Lord KILBRACKEN

I felt it might be convenient if I came in at this stage because the next amendment, No. 13, in my name, has the same purpose, but it leaves out the words "less than three years". The noble Lord, Lord Somers, said at Second Reading that in Clause 2(3) he was thinking about trees that had seeded themselves, and I therefore felt, as the noble Earl felt, that it was preferable to talk about self-seeded trees, to use the noble Earl's phrase, or self-sown trees, to use my phrase. I do not think there is much to choose between them. It makes it clear that the Bill is only referring to trees that have been naturally regenerated. If my amendment were accepted it would mean that it applied to all trees that had been self-sown or self-seeded whether under three years old or not.

I ask your Lordships to consider this, particularly in the light of the very small size of trees, whether they have been planted or whether they have been naturally regenerated, which some of your Lordships may not realise. If you put an acorn or a seed into the ground, or a sycamore plants itself, at the end of the first year it will only be three or four inches high, at the end of two years it may double in height, and at the end of three years it might be a foot or a couple of feet, but not much more than that. It is very difficult indeed to tell whether it is under three years old. You cannot cut it down to count the annual rings. Some trees grow much more quickly than others.

I imagine a situation where there is some parkland with a lot of naturally regenerated trees, perhaps ash or birch or alder. They are 10 or 12 feet high, with a diameter of three to four inches. They are clearly naturally regenerated, but they are only scrubby trees. As the Bill stands at present, because any trees of that size are certainly over three years old, they have been planted for more than three years, it would apply to them, and if any of that scrub is planted a couple of proper trees have to be planted in its place. Therefore, I am proposing that the reference in Clause 2(3) should say simply that Clause I shall not apply to self-sown trees, and leave it at that.

Lord INGLEWOOD

I am in some difficulty here; I do not know if I am the only noble Lord who is. As the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, said, it is not so difficult to identify a self-sown sycamore, growing through the cracks at the side of a road, as being three years old or so. He then referred to park trees and trees growing in spinneys and woods. When you look at a tree which is 100 years old it is quite impossible to say whether it is self-sown or not. As the Bill is now drafted, I think it is imposing an entirely impossible task on those who will have to administer the Act. If we want to make some exception of self-sown trees, then we must put a very strict limit of age.

Lord KILBRACKEN

Could the noble Lord suggest a limit?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES

I think it is clear that Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 cover the same ground, and it is for the Committee to choose which, if either, they wish to support. The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, has moved Amendment No. 12.

The Earl of CORK and ORRERY

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 12.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.16 p.m.

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 1, line 16, leave out ("trees which have been growing for less than three years") and insert ("self-sown trees").

The noble Lord said: I would be interested to know if any noble Lords have any further ideas upon this. It seems to me that I may be wrong and that perhaps some limit should be applied so that the reference would apply only to self-sown trees up to 10 years of age or some other age. I think it should be something more than three years. I would be grateful if any noble Lord has any suggestions on this matter. I beg to move.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

I would have thought the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has answered the point. I would have thought that his suggestion meets the case.

Viscount SIMON

I have been listening with great interest. I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. From looking at a tree growing in a hedgerow, which may be a 100 years old, nobody can tell whether it is self-sown. It is more likely to be self-sown than planted there. There must be some limit. It may be that three years is too little. I am not an expert on these things and I would not for a moment suggest what the limit should be. Should the limit be related to the size of the tree, either the height or the girth of the trunk?

Lord KILBRACKEN

I think what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said is perfectly right. It had not occurred to me that, of course, in the case of a tree 40, 50 or 100 years old no record exists as to whether it originated by planting itself or whether it was planted. I feel on reflection that my present amendment is too sweeping, and that it should apply only to self-sown trees under, let us say, 10 years old, or something of that sort. I would, therefore, propose to introduce a different amendment at Report stage, and in the meantime beg leave to withdraw this one.

Lord GLENKINGLAS

I wonder whether, before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I could ask him to consider before Report stage this point which seems to be a valid one. Most of us looking at the amendments so far have been considering single trees planted along roads and such places. When we come to this particular amendment, there are a number of local authorities that have quite sizeable parks. In some of these they will be growing future stands of hardwoods. It may well be 30 or 40 years before some of them need to be cut out in order to thin what will be a very fine stand of that particular variety of tree. If every time they cut one out they have to put another one in, the whole purpose of thinning the wood will have rather disappeared.

Lord SOMERS

May I point out to the noble Lord that there is a clause later on in the amendments to rectify that.

Lord GLENKINGLAS

I am sorry to have intervened.

Lord BALERNO

I am not sure whether the word "self-seeded" is the right word to use in this context. I put this forward with diffidence; it is a long time since I was a student of forestry. I rather think the correct expression, certainly 50 years ago, was "natural regeneration".

Baroness PHILLIPS

I am not concerned with forestry, but I am a lover of trees and delighted to see that our urban areas now have trees. I find it very strange that your Lordships seem so hard on self-sown trees. Self-sown trees can be equally as beautiful as planted trees. As I understand the purpose of the Bill, if you have a tree there, then the tree would be restored. Does it matter too much how it came there? Is it our job to take them out or is it our job to see that the tree is retained? I would like noble Lords to think about this point before Report stage.

Lord SOMERS

I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that self-sown trees can be extremely useful. However, they can also be an infernal nuisance, as I well know by the number of self-sown suckers that I have had to pull out in my garden. I think that "self-sown" is certainly the solution, but I would join with other noble Lords in pointing out, Who knows whether a tree a 100 years-old is self-sown? One could not possibly tell. Therefore, possibly a combination of the two—namely, "self-sown trees of under three years old "—might be the solution. In any case, that can be put right at the Report stage.

Lord BALERNO

My noble friend Lord Somers referred to "suckers", but they are not self-sown trees. A self-sown tree is one that has grown from a seed. So if we want to be correct scientifically we need to watch out.

Lord SOMERS

I am sorry, my Lords, that was entirely a mistake on my part. I recognised it the moment that I sat down—indeed practically the moment I said it. Suckers are not, of course, self-sown trees. I meant to say "seedlings".

Lord KILBRACKEN

I think that we all want to have another think about this. I would at present be in favour of some such phrase as "naturally regenerated trees under 10 years old". However, I would not dream of suggesting that as a manuscript amendment and will keep it instead for the Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 [Notice of Planting]:

The EARL of CORK and ORRERY moved Amendment No. 14: Page 2, line 1, leave out from ("shall") to ("that") in line 2 and insert ("record").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 14 and I should like to speak to Amendment No. 15 at the same time. By means of these two amendments I have one small hope of attracting a little approval from my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton on behalf of the Government. The clause itself provides for a rather elaborate procedure under subsection (1) requiring the local authority to give notice in writing to the Secretary of State. That is a simple enough thing to say, but it is a pretty elaborate process. I do not know whether the Secretary of State for the Environment will be altogether delighted to have these postcards arriving on his desk daily. It is a fairly elaborate piece of bureaucracy which will do nothing much beyond simply irritating the local authorities who have to compile them; the inspectors wo have to see that they are compiled; and those persons in the Ministry who are destined to receive them and file them carefully in their pigeonholes.

Therefore, I would suggest—and this amendment does so suggest—that, instead of all that, the local authority should simply be required to keep a book in which they shall make a note of everything that they do under the terms of the Bill, and that book, therefore, should be available for any inspector who comes from the Ministry to see that they are doing their job properly and to find out what has been done. The same possibility shall be open to any member of the public who cares to go and ask. I beg to move.

Lord MOWBRAY and SOURTON

I should like to assure my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery that the Government would welcome this reduction in the bureaucratic machinery necessary for the Bill. Nevertheless, even with these two amendments, the local authorities will still be left with additional bureaucratic authority. However, these two amendments do improve the situation.

Lord KILBRACKEN

I should like to support the noble Earl on this amendment. I wonder whether this is the right moment to raise the question of penalties or sanctions. What happens if the local authority does not keep up the record—if the amendment is accepted—or does not give notice as required in the Bill at present? What happens, indeed, if they cut down all the trees in the area and tell the Government to go to blazes? There is absolutely no penalty provided, no offence created, and no way in which the authorities call be compelled to comply with the Act in any way at all. I have never pretended to be a lawyer, but it seems to me that the law requires some penalty and that this has to be inserted at some stage and some place—whether here or somewhere else—in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will agree with me and will try to insert something along those lines before the Report stage.

Lord SOMERS

The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has drawn a pretty grizzly picture of what might happen. I quite agree that it is a weakness in the Bill that there is no penalty for not complying with it. On the other hand, I must confess that what penalties to supply and how to enforce them is at the moment beyond me. Apart from that, I am perfectly happy about the amendment and hope that the Committee will accept it.

Lord WYNNE-JONES

Is there not one further point which would require altering? I am looking at line 10 where the word "notice" is used again. Should not that read "record"?

Lord KILBRACKEN

That is covered by Amendment No. 17.

The Earl of CORK and ORRERY

I should have spoken to that later amendment. The amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, referred, will arise in a moment. I should like to stick for the moment to the amendment presently under discussion. I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. I am not at all sure that it has any particular effect on the amendment or this subsection, because I do not know whether this is necessarily the appropriate place to insert any penalty clause. Whether it is or is not, perhaps it ought to go in somewhere else. I suggest that the amendment might be allowed to pass now and that another amendment be put down to introduce a penalty clause at a later stage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of CORK and ORRERY moved Amendment No. 15:

Page 2, line 4, leave out ("notice") and insert ("record").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 15. This amendment is consequential on the last amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 2, line 7, after ("planted") insert— ("() the number of trees (a) felled or destroyed and (b) planted;").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 16. In the record—as it now is—which has to be kept by the local authority, certain particulars have to he recorded; namely, the date of the felling of the trees, the date of the planting of the new trees, and the place or places at which the new trees have been planted. However, it seems to me that the obvious omission from that list is the number of trees that were cut down and the number of trees that were planted. It seems clear that that is a vital statistic that should be included, and for that reason I beg to move this amendment.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

I should just like to say that, if this register were to serve any useful purpose, this is a very sensible amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of CORK and ORRERY moved Amendment Nos. 17 and 18:

Page 2, line 10, leave out ("notice shall be given") and insert ("record shall be made") line 11, at end insert— ("(3) Records made under this section shall be available for inspection by the Secretary of State and by any member of the public on request").

The noble Earl said: I should have spoken to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 when I spoke to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. They are both consequential on Amendment No. 14. I beg to move, these amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to. Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Local authority regulations]:

6.30 p.m.

Lord SOMERS moved Amendment No. 19:

Page 2, line 15, leave out ("supersedes") and insert ("shall apply notwithstanding").

The noble Lord said: I have tabled this amendment because I want to destroy any impression that I wish to interfere with such arrangements as have been made by local authorities for tree-planting. I recognise the fact, of course, that many of them have made excellent arrangements, and I do not wish to interfere with those in any way. This clause is merely to apply to such authorities where either their own regulations are not sufficient or perhaps they have no regulations at all. I beg to move.

The Earl of CORK and ORRERY

I should like to speak to the next amendment, to leave out clause 5, but I understand that there is no way in which I can do so at present. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, wants to omit the word "supersedes" and insert "shall apply notwithstanding". It appears to me to be unnecessary to have anything like this at all. If there is a clash between an Act of Parliament and a local regulation, no doubt the Act of Parliament will supervene and have rights over the matter. But the noble Lord wants to insert "shall apply notwithstanding". I do not think that it is possible for a local authority regulation to defeat an Act of Parliament. Therefore, if nothing is said, and if this clause is omitted entirely, any regulation made by a local authority which is in conflict with this Bill will automatically fall, and the result proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, in his amendment will occur; that is to say, the Bill will apply notwithstanding the local government regulation. This amendment appears to be unnecessary and, indeed, ineffectual.

Lord SOMERS

What about those councils which have no regulations at the moment?

The Earl of CORK and ORRERY

If there are no regulations I do not see to what the clause applies.

Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON

If it is of any help, the advice from my department is that either Amendment No. 19 or the amendment of the noble Earl would be an improvement on the Bill as it stands, and it does not really matter which one. However, obviously, we cannot have both. Either of them would be suitable.

Lord KILBRACKEN

What is suitable is not always the best solution, so perhaps we should leave this out altogether.

Lord SOMERS

I can only say what a relief it is to have Government backing at last.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Earl Cathcart)

As it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 54 I declare the Question not decided, and pursuant to the Standing Order the House will now resume.

House resumed accordingly.