Forestry Commission Land: Disposals Programme (Hansard, 5 July 1983)

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead)
My Lords, the Forestry Commission has been asked to raise £82.1 million from the sale of land, plantations and other real assets in the five-year period ending 31st March 1986. In the two years ended 31st March 1983, the commission received some £21.2 million from such sales. The level of the commission's disposals programme is looked at each year in the context of the Government's public expenditure survey.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
My Lords, is the Minister aware that when this matter was discussed in the House two years ago, during the passage of the Forestry Bill, the target for disposals was £42 million and that this has now been arbitrarily doubled? Is he also aware that the uncertainty which arises from these proposals has caused a very substantial drop in the planting programme of both the Forestry Commission and the private sector? In 1973 we planted 40,000 hectares, private and state. Last year the figure fell to 20.000 hectares. Is such a policy sensible in the light of the import bill for timber and timber products, which has now reached the staggering figure of £3 billion per annum?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the reason for the revision of the disposals programme was to take account of inflation, and a further two years have been added to the programme. I do not think, if I may say so with respect, that it leads to uncertainty, and certainly not, also with respect to the noble Lord, who has a distinguished record in respect of matters concerned with the Forestry Commission, so far as planting is concerned. There was a 50 per cent, increase in new planting by private owners in the year to 31st March 1982 compared with the previous year. Although final figures for last year are still awaited, these are expected to show that this increase has been sustained.

§ Lord Bishopston
My Lords, will the Minister agree that there is hardly any source in the public or private sector from which the Government do not demand some money to go into their coffers? Is it really in the best interests of forestry that the commission should be 501 told to sell so much land each year regardless of the interests of the industry, especially at a time when we have to import so much timber? Will the Minister give an assurance that rights of public access to forestry land that has been sold will continue to be ensured?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, it is, I believe, reasonable for the Government to make the most efficient use of public assets in the context of constraining public expenditure generally. With this in mind, the money from the disposals programme goes into the Consolidated Fund and. in its turn, the commission receives adequate sums of money each year by way of grant-in-aid for its agreed programmes.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and the noble Lord. Lord Taylor of Gryfe, mentioned the wood-processing industry. One of the important guidelines that was given to the Forestry Commission in regard to these disposals was the guarantee of supplies of timber over a long period if major investments are to be made in the wood-processing industry. I am sure that both noble Lords will have noted that United Paper Mills, a major Finnish company, has recently announced its decision to establish a pulp and newsprint mill at Shotton, in North Wales, with a wood requirement of 450,000 tonnes a year. This development would not have taken place without Government support.

Lord Winstanley
My Lords, will the noble Lord deal with the point of access, to which reference has already been made? Will the noble Lord confirm that where Forestry Commission land to which there is a right of public access is disposed of to the private sector, there will be a continuing obligation on the new owner to maintain that right of public access?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords. I apologise for not answering that point. Any existing public access rights will be protected.

§ Lord Kilbracken
My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether most of the land being sold is carrying mature or nearly mature timber, or whether it is carrying young plantations? Can he give any indication of the number of acres or the number of hectares that have been sold to raise the sums that he has mentioned?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I cannot answer the question about the maturity of the timber, but on 21st June this year the total amount of land sold amounted to 12,178 hectares. That updates slightly the original Answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. Of that, land awaiting planting was 2,629 hectares. Land now in the process of being sold totals 46,507 hectares, and, of that, the land awaiting planting is 917 hectares.

§ Lord Bishopston
My Lords, has the noble Lord misunderstood the question? I believe that it is a fact that land sold by the Forestry Commission on the instructions of the Government may not necessarily be used for forestry purposes in the future.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I am sorry, but I do not understand the noble Lord's question.

§ Lord Leatherland
My Lords, when the noble Lord says, as he has said three times, that so many hectares were dealt with, can he translate that into English and tell us how many acres?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, you multiply by two and add on a bit.

Lord Hunt
My Lords, is the Minister able to assure the House that where Forestry Commission land situated in national parks is contemplated there is the closest possible consultation with the national parks authorities, not only in view of the importance of maintaining public access but also in the interests of landscape and conservation?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, in its selection process the Forestry Commission will clearly take full account of the features that led to the designation of those areas. I shall certainly draw the attention of the Forestry Commission to the noble Lord's question.

§ Lord Bishopston
My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for not making my point clear. I was asking him whether he is aware that under the Forestry Act 1981 land sold on the instructions of the Government need not be used for forestry purposes in the future, and that this could represent a loss of timber and forestry amenity.

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, it could lead to a loss of timber, but I do not think that this will happen because of the remarkable increase in private planting in response to the change in grant structure made in 1981.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
My Lords, will the noble Lord keep in mind, when updating future targets in this field, the importance of maintaining the excellent partnership that has existed between the private sector and the state sector over the past 50 years? Will he also keep in mind that mature and semi-mature woodlands that are revenue producing are being sold off while the Forestry Commission retains the responsibility at the taxpayers' expense, for research and management advice, and that this creates an unbalance that is undesirable?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, so far as the second point is concerned, it specifically forms part of the guidelines on disposals which are given to the commission. I respond gladly to the first point that the noble Lord put to me about co-operation between the private sector and the Forestry Commission. I am glad to have the opportunity to assure the noble Lord that the Government intend to maintain the commission's programme, but with a greater place for participation by the private sector in new planting.