TREES (REPLANTING AND REPLACEMENT) BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 21 May 1980)

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

§ Lord BIRKETT
In supporting this amendment I should say that I do so only because I think that the Bill will be better with it than without it. Since I have not spoken on this matter before, I should declare not an interest but a widespread concern. The Department of Recreation and Arts of the Greater London Council, of which I am the director, controls a very large number of trees. It controls all the parks within the Greater London Council's control in London and a good deal of open space besides, including a large amount of Green Belt area which is now farmland.
Having said that, I should like to say that it is not on behalf of the Greater London Council that I speak, but on my own behalf. Then I should like to say that my rather grudging remarks about this amendment contain an inkling of my own view of the Bill which, I gather, rather coincides with that of the Government: that it is unnecessary. I do not like to say unkind things about a Bill which is designed to be friendly towards trees but I cannot like it much. I think that this amendment will improve it. I was going to say, unkindly, that I could not imagine why it had not been included in the Bill in the first place; but I recalled that only at the last sitting of this Com- mittee an amendment was agreed whereby the schedule of trees should be removed thereby including (need I say more?)
1006 sycamores. That means that the thinning provision (which I think should have been there, anyway) is all the more important.
My only question in specific terms about the amendment is whether it was necessary to add the words "in wooded areas". I am not sure what is a wooded area and how many trees one needs to make a wooded area. One is not enough. Does two make a wooded area? I ask that question for a particular reason; it is whether an avenue would be considered a wooded area. If one plants an avenue, sometimes, for the good of the public, one plants it double thick knowing full well that after a certain number of years— well after three years— one will cut down half of them in order to encourage the growth of the remainder so as to produce eventually, one hopes, a mature and lofty avenue. If, every time that happens, one is obliged to plant two more trees then that amounts to another avenue; and this goes on mathematically to absurdity.
If it should be said that the Bill says two for one because of the fall-out of new trees planted, it is worth remembering something which I think has not been mentioned in this debate before: that if you plant trees mature enough and with enough care about their protection— as, in many London areas, we must because of the vandalism involved— you may find that two are not necessary to replace one. If "B" and "C"-sized trees, large ones, with good protection, are planted, this may not be necessary. There are other places where you can plant trees, especially if you are a large authority like the Greater London Council, but I can imagine a circumstance in which avenues, if not considered as wooded areas, can be an embarrassment. I wish therefore that the words "in wooded areas" had not been included. Nevertheless, I support the amendment.

§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON
I should like to say that I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has said. I think that my noble friend Lord Somers has a good point in this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, made the point for him: that where you plant an avenue expecting one or two to be not so good, you expect them to be thinned out. This is what this does. It enables the local authority to thin out woodland 1007 without the felled thinnings needing to be replaced. As far as I can see, this is a sensible amendment.

§ Lord SOMERS
I was persuaded at the first part of our Committee stage to include this amendment, but I realise that it has its shortcomings. On the other hand, the question of an avenue is a different one; because if a single tree in an avenue is felled or destroyed I should have thought the obvious intention of whoever is responsible for the avenue is to replace it by planting another of the same species. However, if your Lordships think it is necessary to include "avenues" after "wooded areas", we can do so at the Report stage. Meanwhile, I should have thought that the clause as it stands would be satisfactory.

§ Lord ELWYN-JONES
May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Somers, whether there is any definition of "thinning" of trees— how thin? This is not an entirely frivolous intervention. I wonder if thought might be given to that between now and Report stage. I do not know whether any definition is possible; but I can imagine people having different ideas of thinness in respect of a woodland. It might be a convenient way of avoiding what the noble Lord has in mind by over-emphasising how thin the thinness should be.

§ Lord SOMERS
May I point out to the noble and learned Lord that thinning is not the same thing as slimming? He may have got the two mixed up. I should have thought that in the circumstances "thinning" would be an obvious word to anyone responsible for wooded lands.

§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON
I should say that I might have given your Lordships the wrong impression. When I took the case of the avenue, I was taking the case of, say, sugar beet, where one plants more than one intends to keep at the end of the day and one thins out, leaving only the best. I was not intending to take avenues as the acme of what Lord Somers was saying. I take his point about wooded areas and thinning. I still think it is a sensible amendment.

§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON
I would have thought that this was a very sensible amendment. Local authorities might be in difficulties if they had engineering works taking place in their area and had to fell trees because of it and then had to have a replacement for trees. If a major new road is going through an area where there are trees, where does the local authority put the replacement trees? This is what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, is aiming to deal with.

§ Lord BIRKETT
I, too, support the amendment, again rather grudgingly. I wish that it had not said over one acre. I cannot see that the situation is any better in three-quarters of an acre than it is in an acre. I wish I were surer of what "engineering works" are by definition— of where engineering stops and building begins, or indeed any form of beneficial works begin and engineering works stop.

§ Lord SOMERS
Again, I think it is merely a matter of choice. I chose the area of one acre simply to ensure that the provision referred to major engineering works such as the noble Lord referred to— road building or something like that. I do not think that just clearing a small area should be included.

§ Lord ELWYN-JONES
I am puzzled by a series of asterisks against numbers on the Marshalled List. I must not 1009 disclose my ignorance in the field of tree felling any further, but I do not think it has anything much to do with tree felling. No doubt the noble Lord who is dealing with this matter from the Government Front Bench will explain exactly what this series of stars indicates.

§ Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON
I thought it was a very interesting pattern. It looks like a forest or orchard grove. I would have thought that the noble Lord had amendments down which have now been withdrawn. But I think they make a very pretty pattern.