HL Deb 03 April 1984 vol 450 cc587-8
Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, which, unfortunately, has been rather overtaken by events.

The Question was as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy on the cutting down of woodland and reclaiming the land for agriculture, and whether they agree that this should receive assistance under the Business Expansion Scheme.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, there is a presumption against large-scale felling of woodlands to make land available for agricultural use. When application is made for the necessary felling licence, the commission consults the agriculture department and, as appropriate, the local planning authority and other statutory authorities before reaching a decision. As the noble Lord has said he is aware, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his recent Budget, proposes to exclude farming as a qualifying trade under the Business Expansion Scheme.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, which I anticipated. Is he aware that one can still buy forestry land where there are trees under a certain size which have been put there at public expense, grub them up and put the land back to agriculture, thereby tremendously increasing the value of the land and almost certainly getting drainage grants, and so on? Is that not something which should be stopped when we have a surplus of cereals and a very large sufficiency—somewhere in the region of £4,000 million—in wood and wood products?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I agree with the general thrust of the noble Lord's question, but the rules are very tight. Depending on the reason for felling, a licence must be issued for trees of a diameter of more than 10 to 15 centimetres. The rules are drawn very tightly indeed.

Lord Somers

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that timber is a form of agriculture and that we are becoming dangerously short of wooded land?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, the Forestry Commission undertook a census a little while ago, and I am glad to say that that showed that the area of broad-leafed woods has not declined since the war, although there may have been changes in species. So far as replanting for broad leaves is concerned, some higher rates of grant are available. The noble Lord may be interested to know that the the Forestry Commission has advised me that its estimate is that the planting of broad-leafed woodland in the past five years or so has trebled.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, while welcoming the end of the abuse of the Business Expansion Scheme by the Government, may I ask the noble Lord to say whether the presumption that he mentioned against the widespread clearance of woodland for agriculture would be absolute in the case of the clearance of ancient woodland, bearing in mind the recommendation of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology that the losses of ancient woodland have been so severe in the period since the war that no more should be destroyed for any reason whatsoever?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I have not said that, and I do not say it now. The noble Lord may be interested in the fact that the Nature Conservancy Council is drawing up a list of ancient woodland sites and is to discuss their management with local Forestry Commission conservancy officers. I join in the sentiments of the noble Lord by saying that I am very glad that that is being done. I think that he has every right to express his concern, but I do not go as far as he has asked me to go.

Lord Leatherland

My Lords, can the Minister give us an assurance—I hope he can—that there is no plan by the Government or by anyone else to cut down Epping Forest? I have an interest to declare as it is at the bottom of my garden.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I know of the noble Lord's interest. I respect it, and I agree with it.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, as the noble Lord relied on the Forestry Commission census, which suggested that the area of deciduous woodland in this country had not decreased since the war, may I ask him whether he is aware of the very widespread criticism of the basis on which that survey was conducted, and in particular of the criticism which suggests that the Forestry Commission excluded large areas of very small woodland from the figures with which it was comparing its more recent work, and that on that basis the survey is completely worthless?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I have confidence in the work of the Forestry Commission.

Back to